Space technology is developing so fast that by the time the tech makes it through the acquisitions process and into orbit, it\u2019s practically obsolete.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe technology is moving at such an accelerated pace and these technologies are on such a steep trajectory that the traditional acquisition system just frankly can\u2019t keep up,\u201d explained Ken Peterman, president of government systems for Viasat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To combat this trend, the U.S. Air Force\u2019s space acquisition arm, the Space and Missile Systems Center, is focused on quickly building prototypes as a way to speed up development and bring nontraditional companies into the Pentagon\u2019s space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Using tools such as other transaction authorities, Section 804 \u2014 a rapid acquisition approach that aims to field capabilities within two to five years \u2014 the Space Enterprise Consortium and Air Force pitch days, SMC is encouraging an acquisitions model focused on prototyping over the slower, more cumbersome Pentagon procurement procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The missile warning example<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under the Pentagon\u2019s normal acquisition process, it could take the better part of a decade \u2014 or longer \u2014 from contract award to launching a satellite into orbit. Consider the Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared satellite system. OPIR is supposed to replace the Space-Based Infrared System as the nation\u2019s premier early warning missile detection and tracking satellite system, providing significantly more capacity than the current constellation. But under traditional acquisitions, OPIR wouldn\u2019t be available until nine years after contract award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That wasn\u2019t going to cut it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So service leaders took a new approach. Instead of going through the traditional acquisition process, the Air Force would adopt a rapid prototyping approach to accelerate development. And rather than develop large, exquisite satellites meant to last generations, new satellites would be smaller, less expensive and built for replacement in three- to four-year cycles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe have existing programs of record … that continue to take the four or five or six years or whatever that we originally contracted for. I think our goal going into the future is to get more on a three- to four-year cycle for our satellites, not just in production but also in terms of their amount of principal time on work,\u201d said SMC Commander Lt. Gen. John Thompson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lockheed Martin used this approach to build three OPIR satellites. Instead of subcontracting with one company to build the satellites\u2019 payloads, Lockheed Martin is having two teams compete to build the best OPIR payload. This not only mitigates the risk of failure by having two competing prototypes, but also moves to a fail-early model where a successful prototype is less likely to lead to issues later on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Applied to OPIR, rapid prototyping has cut the projected timeline for the project in half.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt is harder to move fast if you haven\u2019t done the underlying innovation, prototyping and technology development that allows those systems to go forward. So even when you look at things like Next Gen OPIR, which is not a three- to four-year cycle, we\u2019re bringing that from what would have been 108 months down into the five-year timeline; that was the fuel,\u201d said Col. Dennis Bythewood, program executive officer for space development at SMC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Hither the Space Enterprise Consortium<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
OPIR is one example of the rapid prototyping approach the Air Force is taking with space procurement. But perhaps the best example of SMC\u2019s rapid prototyping approach is the Space Enterprise Consortium, or SpEC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Established in 2017 through an other transaction authority, or OTA, SpEC is an organization comprised of 325 members who can apply to build space-related prototypes. To date, the Air Force has issued more than 50 awards to the group to develop prototypes, ranging from a ground system for OPIR to a new space vehicle that could extend the Link 16 network to beyond line-of-sight communications. Often, the consortium awards multiple contracts for one project, allowing companies to compete to produce a viable technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although not every prototype succeeds, the approach allows for failure earlier in the development process than the traditional acquisition model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[This strategy] allows individual components to fail, but us to continue to move forward. And that\u2019s a place where you can see competitive prototyping with multiple vendors going head-to-head. I don\u2019t know which one will be successful when we start, but there\u2019s a much higher likelihood that I\u2019m going to end up with multiple success at the tail end,\u201d Bythewood said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because the consortium specializes in OTAs, it\u2019s able to open the door to nontraditional companies that don\u2019t have the time or resources to go through the regular acquisition process under the Department of Defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOTAs are good in the sense that they\u2019re a lot more flexible, they\u2019re not hard contracts \u2014 they\u2019re just agreements. And in that respect, they attract nontraditional suppliers, people who haven\u2019t been working with DoD and don\u2019t want to recall all their accounting systems, so that they can comply with all the cost-reporting requirements for DoD and everything like that. So for a lot of companies, they\u2019re attractive,\u201d said Cristina Chaplain, director of the Government Accountability Office\u2019s contracting and national security acquisitions team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Small startups and venture capital-funded companies are a big part of commercial growth in space. But for a long time, these companies have been frustrated in their attempts to engage with the Pentagon on space, Chaplain said. OTAs, and the consortium in particular, knock down barriers between the DoD and small, commercial, space-focused companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Of course, working with less traditional companies also opens the door to increased risk. These companies aren\u2019t necessarily familiar with the way the Pentagon does business. And even if OTAs offer flexibility, working with the government be a major challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That\u2019s why SpEC was designed with mentorship in mind. In the SpEC framework, there\u2019s room for these small companies to partner with larger, more established players. Kay Sears, Lockheed Martin\u2019s vice president and general manager for military space, explained that defense contractors can work with SpEC to find innovative startup companies that need help bringing their new technologies to bare for the Pentagon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The result is a symbiotic relationship, where prime contractors such as Lockheed can take smaller companies under their wing as they navigate the complex world of the DoD, while the startups can help Lockheed innovate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe\u2019re not asking those companies to become defense companies, we\u2019re asking them to actually stay commercial and stay motivated to their original business plan, but to work with us and we can mentor them to help develop that technology,\u201d Sears said. \u201cSo we have to find those nuggets of commercial capability and commercial innovation, and then bridge that into the mission understanding that we have and the mission systems that we can contract (for) and deliver.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2018The darker side\u2019<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
While the Air Force is quick to tout the expected benefits of the SpEC approach, there are potential downsides. For one, transparency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe darker side is that it\u2019s harder to have good management and oversight if you\u2019re not requiring all the same things from the contractors. You\u2019re not getting the same kind of reporting,\u201d Chaplain said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Government Accountability Office can help hold the Pentagon and contractors accountable over the long lifetime of a program contract, tracking spending increases, delays and failures. And the GAO is able to provide some oversight for OTAs, however it\u2019s more difficult than programs going through the regular acquisitions process, Chaplain explained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another problem is funding. The rapid prototyping approach requires more money up front and a less risk-averse approach. Next Gen OPIR will be a test run for whether Congress can get on board with that approach for space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As the Air Force sped up OPIR\u2019s timeline with rapid prototyping, it created a significant increase in their near-term budget. For fiscal 2020, the Pentagon asked for $1.4 billion for the program. That\u2019s a $459 million increase over what was projected for FY20 during the last budget cycle. The House has balked at that amount, authorizing $1 billion of the requested funding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Senate Appropriations Committee has taken the opposite approach. Not only did Senate appropriators vote to fully fund the request; they threw in an additional $536 million to fully fund the program. As the senators noted in their report on the bill, OPIR will serve as a test case for whether Congress will support SMC\u2019s rapid prototyping approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Committee believes the program will be a[n] exemplar for rapid acquisition of space programs, whether the program succeeds or fails,\u201d the report read. \u201cFailure will have implications for Congress\u2019s willingness to fund future programs using the National Defense Authorization Act section 804 rapid prototyping and fielding authorities for similarly large, or even middle tier programs, for years to come. Alternatively, if the program is to have any chance of success, the [Defense] Department cannot continue to rely on reprogramming requests for its funding.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The once and future SpEC<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even as the fight over OPIR funding continues in Congress, the Space Enterprise Consortium and its funding has grown by leaps and bounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIt has been a vast success story for [SpEC]. We began that contract with a $100 million ceiling, which meant that we could execute many different actions within it up to about $100,000. We took that five times higher within the first year,\u201d Bythewood said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
And SMC seems keen to build on that approach. On Aug. 20, the Space and Missiles Systems Center issued a request for information expressing an interest in re-competing the SpEC OTA agreement. This new SpEC would have a $12 billion ceiling over 10 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe\u2019re not going to be awarding a $1 billion contract within SpEC OTA. We\u2019re looking at having smaller competitive prototyping efforts that get our products off on the right start in order to deliver capabilities sooner. So if there\u2019s a fear … that we\u2019re going to be executing huge programs of record under the SpEC OTA vehicle, that\u2019s a kind of [unfounded] fear,\u201d Thompson said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Another example of the rapid prototyping initiative is the Air Force\u2019s new pitch days concept, where on designated days, companies can present new technologies to the government and potentially win a Section 804 contract within minutes. The Air Force has been holding pitch days this year for a variety of platforms. The Air Force will be holding its first \u201cSpace Pitch Day\u201d from Nov. 5-6 with a focus on launch systems, data mining, space visualization and space communications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whether it\u2019s SpEC, pitch days or working closely with contractors, it\u2019s clear SMC sees rapid prototyping as the way forward for military space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe recognize that when you try new things, some will work great, some will work moderately well and some you might fail fast on. But that\u2019s OK because clearly we need to do things differently,\u201d said Peterman of Viasat. \u201cWe applaud the kinds of things these senior leaders are doing to try to drive change, get these cutting-edge capabilities into the war fighters\u2019 hands as quickly as possible.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Using the Space Enterprise Consortium, OTAs and Pitch Days, the Air Force is shifting its focus to rapid prototyping for space acquisitions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":39550,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-noindex":"","_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-nofollow":"","_yoast_wpseo_canonical":"","_acf":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":23,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_smg_distribution_targets":[]},"categories":[160,163,36,23],"tags":[],"coauthors":[3385],"class_list":["post-19355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-daily-news-roundup","category-military-space-report","category-newsletters","category-space"],"acf":{"subheadline":"","legacy_arc_id":"4UYI2BYXNVEDDNTZJDQXZAODS4","arc_canonical_url":"\/battlefield-tech\/space\/2019\/09\/30\/is-rapid-prototyping-the-key-to-space\/","remove_feature_photo":false,"is_sponsored":false,"subtype":"","redirect_url":"","disable_inline_ads":false,"native_logo_pretext":"Presented By:"},"yoast_head":"\n