The 4^th Responsive Space Conference was held on April 23-26, 2006 at the LAX Westin Hotel and was sponsored by the LA and Orange County sections of the AIAA and the Space Systems (SSTC), Space Transportation (STTC), and Space Operations and Support (SOSTC) Technical Committees.  RS4 was immediately followed on April 26-27 by the Improving Space Operations Workshop, sponsored by the SOSTC.

The conference had 380 participants (up about 15% from RS3), including 31 professional papers, 6 distinguished speakers, 3 panels on Mission Requirements (moderated by Maj. Gen. Mark Shackelford of Space Command), Missions (moderated by Todd Mosher of Lockheed Martin), and Operations (moderated by Paul Zetocha of AFRL/VSE), and a splinter meeting on Responsive Space Standards (moderated by Lt. Col. Fred Slane of AFRL/VS).  The Keynote Address was given by Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz, Vice Commander of Space Command, followed by an invited talk by Brian Green, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Policy.  The Banquet speaker was Gary Payton, Deputy Under Secretary of the Air Force for Space Programs.  The luncheon speakers were Lt. Gen. Mike Hamel, Commander of Air Force Space and Missile Systems, Dr. Pete Rustan, Director of Advanced Systems and Technology for the NRO, and Maj. Gen. Ted Mercer of USSTRATCOM.

A complete list of presenters and speakers is in the Final Program.  Abstracts of all of the papers are given in the Abstracts section of this website.  The papers themselves, along with the briefing charts and whatever material was available from the guest speakers were given to all attendees and will be posted to this website in September, 2006.  An Evaluation of the Conference by the participants is also posted.  A summary of the SOSTC Space Operations Workshop will be posted on this website when it is complete.

Perhaps one of the most intriguing elements of RS-4 is that there were almost as many definitions of Responsive Space as there were participants.  Several of those definitions are given in the summary below.  A technical discussion of the levels of responsiveness is given in a brief technical note in the Dialog section of this website.

In the Keynote Address, Lt. Gen. Klotz, defined Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) as follows: “ORS will provide an affordable capability to promptly, accurately, and decisively position and operate national and military assets in and through space and near space.  The ORS vision is to provide rapid, tailorable space power focused at the operational and tactical level of war.”  Space Command views ORS as an enabler with four components:

• Responsive Satellites

• Responsive Spacelift

• Responsive Launch Ranges

• Near Space systems

Gen. Klotz stressed that Responsive Space was not the answer to every question, but is needed to augment current systems, replace systems that are lost for any reason, and serve as a testbed for new technology.

In his opening remarks immediately following Gen. Klotz, Brian Green of OSD, said that “one of the key challenges is to make space relevant to the warfighter in today’s security environment. Operational Responsive Space (ORS) is a potentially important approach to do just that. From a policy perspective, interest in ORS stems from the demands of the new security environment – new threats, uncertainty, surprise, the global war on terror, and the urgency to provide tailored, battle-field information under strict timelines to the theater commander.”

However, he then said that this drives a very basic question. What do we mean by Operationally Responsive Space? A lot of people seem interested, including Congress, but ORS efforts have not been well integrated or coordinated yet, and the term clearly means different things to different people. A commonly accepted definition is essential if ORS is to gain much traction in the space policy, operational, acquisition and service communities. Green says his office has tentatively defined ORS as “Assured space power that is focused at the operational level of war”. He also acknowledges that there is a lot to unpack in this simple definition. Going further, he says the doctrine for joint operations identifies 14 elements of operational art that translate to success across a range of military operations. Among these are synergy, balance, timing and tempo, and simultaneity and depth.

Throughout the conference others addressed various parts of the problem, but there seemed to be a consistent disconnect between the warfighter mission needs and the desire to push small satellites, small launch vehicles, and responsive range and ground systems. As Green said, “the definition of ORS cannot be all over the map and cannot be everything to everyone.”

During the Requirements panel discussion, Maj. Gen. Jim Armor pointed out that the turning point had been reached on Responsive Space.  With the current Congressional action and the support of Ron Sega, the government has become committed to ORS.

Lt. Gen. Mike Hamel talked to the space operational capabilities across four mission sets: Space Superiority, Global Information Superiority, Global Surveillance, Tracking and Targeting, Prompt Global Strike. All four rely on command and control of space forces to plan, task, direct and integrate. They also rely on Assured Access and Operations that include the launch capability, range and satellite control network. Hamel sees this as an operationally responsive, capabilities-based, joint integrated framework. Note that while small satellite and small launch vehicles may accomplish some of Hamel’s mission more cost effectively, his focus is on mission success without regard to the size of the platform or vehicle.

Dr. Pete Rustan, NRO, AS&T, reminded us of the problems brought on by making spacecraft overly complex and putting multiple missions on the same platform. He recommends single mission platforms, or, at a minimum, payloads that have synergy.  R&D and technology maturation should be external to the program acquisition. He recommends keeping satellites small (less than 1,000 pounds) and using a swarm of distributed small satellites to increase capabilities.

In addressing the conference theme of “pulling it together”, he said that to do this, we must fully understand today's problems in our space industry and how we can solve these problems. He also agreed that a low-cost launch capability is a key enabler going forward. He reminded us that the warfighter wants persistent surveillance (24/7 capability). Accordingly, orbital mechanics drives you to either: many LEO satellites, a smaller constellation of MEO satellites or one or more GEO satellites. Either way, the cost quickly becomes quite high to achieve a warfighter/tactical capability.

At the wrap-up session Thursday afternoon, there was consensus on a number of issues:

• The definition of Responsive Space is not yet fixed and, to a degree, depends on the needs of the particular user.

• However defined, ORS can have a high level of utility for a wide variety of missions, including surveillance, wind and weather, communications, and reconstitution of on-orbit assets which fail for any reason.  ORS should complement or augment, rather than replace, traditional space programs.

• Many stated that the lack of affordable, robust, responsive access to space will negate much of the utility of low-cost satellite missions.

• The technology and processes are largely available to create Responsive Space.  What is lacking is primarily a government commitment to fund ORS missions and systems.  (Some people would argue that funding will be forthcoming, but that Responsive Government is even more elusive than Responsive Missions.)

• RS5 will be held on April 23-27, 2007 in Los Angeles.  Stay tuned to this website for more information.

This summary prepared by Jim Wertz, based on speaker’s text and notes taken by Harry Ivey of Ivey Associates.