Disaggregation Offers an Array of Benefits and Limitations, but Significant Barriers to Implementation Exist

It is not yet known whether and to what extent disaggregation, on a broad  scale, can enable DOD to reduce acquisition costs and increase the  resilience of its satellite systems. But experts agree that decisionmaking would benefit from assessments  that look well beyond a single satellite program. For  instance, our work continues to find that there are time gaps—sometimes  years—in aligning the delivery of satellites with associated user  equipment and ground systems, which means that satellites may be in  orbit for a long time with limited use. Acquiring smaller, less complex satellites may require less  time and effort to develop and produce, for example. However, a larger number of small satellites may be needed to  provide the same level of capability overall, and the transition from  existing system designs to disaggregation could increase costs in the  near term. Potential effects of disaggregation in terms of resilience are  listed in table 2. For each of  these segments, DOD is already facing considerable management and  oversight challenges that disaggregation could well exacerbate. DOD Has Begun to Examine Disaggregation for Its Space Systems but Has Yet to Verify Effects

DOD has initiated and completed studies and demonstrations, including  AOAs that examine disaggregated concepts for certain systems. While  AOAs and other studies can provide initial insights, such as rough order  of magnitude costs of selected disaggregated scenarios, they are not  intended to comprehensively assess the effects of disaggregation. Moreover, the lack of common measures for key factors such as  resilience may limit the effectiveness of these assessments. Technology  demonstrations are providing an additional avenue for gaining knowledge  about disaggregation, but demonstrations to date have been limited,  concentrating more on technical feasibility and less on operational  feasibility. Because  most of DOD’s knowledge about disaggregation resides in paper studies  and a limited number of demonstration efforts, continued or expanded  demonstration efforts—including those to provide operational capabilities  or otherwise aimed at quantifying the benefits, limitations, and feasibility  of space system disaggregation—conducted before wide-scale change is  implemented could go a long way towards gaining empirical data to help  DOD develop quantifiable estimates and verify the wide range of potential  benefits and limitations disaggregation may yield. Develop common measures for resilience; and  3. Expand demonstration efforts to examine the operational feasibility of  disaggregation by empirically quantifying its benefits and limitations as  well as addressing longstanding barriers that could hinder its  implementation. In its written  comments, DOD concurred with our first two recommendations and  partially concurred with our third recommendation. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report, 113-44,  accompanying S. 1197, a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act  for Fiscal Year 2014, mandated that we assess the potential benefits and  drawbacks of disaggregating key military space systems—to include the  use of hosted payloads—with a focus on whether disaggregation offers  decreased acquisition and life cycle costs and increased survivability  compared to more traditional approaches to acquiring capabilities.1,  The  report mandated that we examine disaggregation for three military space  systems in particular: Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF),  Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS), and Weather Satellite Follow-on  (WSF). This report (1) describes the potential benefits and limitations of  disaggregating military space systems, and (2) assesses the extent to  which DOD is ready to make informed decisions regarding disaggregating  AEHF, SBIRS, and WSF.
Why GAO Did This Study

Fiscal constraints and growing threats to space systems have led DOD to consider alternatives for acquiring space-based capabilities, including disaggregating large satellites into multiple, smaller satellites or payloads (see graphic). A Senate Armed Services Committee report mandated GAO to assess the potential benefits and drawbacks of disaggregation and examine if it offers decreased costs and increased survivability for selected DOD satellite systems.
This report (1) describes potential benefits and limitations of disaggregation, and (2) assesses the extent to which DOD is ready to make informed decisions regarding disaggregating these systems. GAO reviewed documents and interviewed officials from over 35 offices within DOD, civilian agencies, contractors, and third parties to compile a list of factors relating to potential impacts of disaggregation. GAO used these factors, along with prior GAO work on best practices and space acquisitions, as criteria for evaluating DOD's work to date on assessing disaggregation.

What GAO Found

It is not yet known whether and to what degree disaggregation can help the Department of Defense (DOD) reduce acquisition costs and increase the resilience of its satellite systems. Experts GAO spoke with identified an array of benefits and limitations. For example, acquiring smaller, less complex satellites may require less time and effort to develop and produce. On the other hand, a larger number of satellites may be needed to provide the same level of capability, and the transition from existing system designs could increase costs. Experts agree that decisionmaking would benefit from assessments that look beyond a single satellite program and consider the broad range of potential effects of disaggregation. Benefits and limitations aside, there are longstanding barriers to implementation. For instance, disaggregation could exacerbate delays in the delivery of user equipment and ground systems. As GAO has reported, such delays, tied to management and oversight shortcomings, have resulted in expensive satellites being in orbit for years with limited use.
DOD is examining whether disaggregation should be used for some of its space systems, but significant uncertainty—including how to quantify a broad range of potential effects—remains. For example, DOD has initiated and completed studies and demonstrations, including Analyses of Alternatives that examine disaggregated concepts for certain systems. These studies can provide initial insights, such as rough order of magnitude costs of selected disaggregated scenarios, but they are not intended to comprehensively assess the effects of disaggregation. Moreover, DOD does not have common measures for resilience—a key space system consideration—which may limit the effectiveness of these assessments. Additionally, while technology demonstrations are providing an avenue for gaining knowledge about disaggregation, they have been limited, concentrating more on technical than operational feasibility. Focusing more on operational feasibility would help to empirically quantify the effects of disaggregation and address implementation barriers. Until more knowledge is gained, disaggregation will not only remain inconclusive, but poorly informed decisions could be made in the interim.

What GAO Recommends

Before making decisions to disaggregate DOD space systems, DOD should (1) comprehensively examine the full range of potential effects of disaggregation, (2) develop common measures for resilience, and (3) expand demonstration efforts to examine the operational feasibility of disaggregation. DOD concurred with the first two recommendations and partially concurred with the third. GAO continues to believe DOD should demonstrate the operational feasibility of disaggregation.