The Personnel 

Requirements 

and Costs of New 

Military Space 

Organizations

MAY 2019

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
Notes

The years referred to in this report are federal fiscal years, which run from October 1 to 

September 30 and are designated by the calendar year in which they end.

All costs are expressed in 2020 dollars. Costs for years before 2020 have been adjusted 

for inflation with the gross domestic product price index from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis.

www.cbo.gov/publication/55178
Contents

Summary 1

What Has CBO Analyzed? 1

How Much Would New Space Organizations Increase Costs? 1

How Much Might the Administration’s Proposal Increase Costs? 2

Types of Military Organizations 2

Military Departments 2

Military Services 2

Combatant Commands 3

Development and Acquisition Agencies 3

Policy Directorates 3

Establishing New Space Organizations 3

Recent History 3

Steps in Establishing a New Space Organization 4

Arguments For and Against Establishing New Space Organizations 4

Estimated Costs of the Policy Options 5

A New Military Department 5

A New Military Service 6

A New Combatant Command 7

A New Development and Acquisition Agency 7

A New Policy Directorate 7

The Administration’s Proposal 7

Appendix: How CBO Estimated the Personnel Requirements and Costs of the Policy Options 9

List of Tables and Figures 16

About This Document 17

The Personnel Requirements and 

Costs of New Military Space Organizations

Summary

The U.S. military conducts many operations that involve 

space. Such operations consist mostly of launching, 

operating, and maintaining satellites that are used for 

various purposes, such as communicating, observing 

the weather, and monitoring other countries’ missile 

launches. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 

about 23,000 full-time positions within the Department 

of Defense (DoD) are dedicated to performing space 

activities or to supporting those who do—excluding space 

activities in the intelligence agencies. At the moment, 

93 percent of those positions are in the Department of 

the Air Force. 

The Administration has proposed changing that arrangement by creating what it calls a space force—an independent military service within the Department of the Air 

Force. The Administration has also proposed two more 

space organizations in its budget proposal for fiscal year 

2020: a new combatant command and a new agency that 

would be responsible for the development and acquisition 

of space systems. Furthermore, the Administration has 

proposed creating a civilian Under Secretary for Space 

who would supervise the space service, report to the 

Secretary of the Air Force, and perhaps make policy about 

space. 

What Has CBO Analyzed?

In this report, CBO examines five types of space organizations that DoD could create, including the three that 

the Administration has proposed:

• A new military service within a new military 

department that would be analogous to the 

Department of the Army and that would organize, 

train, and equip space forces;

• A new military service that would exist within the 

Department of the Air Force, much as the Marine 

Corps exists within the Department of the Navy, and 

that would likewise organize, train, and equip space 

forces;

• A new combatant command that would be structured 

like the military’s Cyber Command and that would 

employ space capabilities in peacetime and during 

conflicts;

• A new agency that would be focused on developing 

and acquiring space systems and that would be 

analogous to the Missile Defense Agency; and 

• A new directorate that would make policy about 

space and that would be analogous to the office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

CBO estimated the number of new personnel that each 

of those five organizational options would require for 

overhead and management, the annual costs that those 

new personnel would entail, and the onetime startup 

and transition costs of each option. The estimates in this 

report are for illustrative policy options; they do not represent cost estimates for any particular piece of legislation.

CBO focused on how much the options would increase

costs, not how much each option would cost in total. 

Some current positions in DoD would simply be transferred to a new space organization and thus would not 

increase DoD’s total costs. Also, because it is unclear how 

much new capability DoD or the Congress might decide 

to add to a new organization, CBO’s analysis does not 

account for any new capabilities; it includes only the cost 

of new administrative structures. In addition, the analysis 

incorporates the assumption that intelligence agencies’ 

space capabilities, which are substantial, would not be 

transferred to a new space organization. And it incorporates the assumption that positions transferred from 

existing services to a new organization would not be filled 

again by the existing services; if they were, costs would 

increase.

How Much Would New Space Organizations 

Increase Costs?

Annual costs for new personnel would be much larger 

for some of the options than for others (see Table 1). For 
2 The Personnel Requirements and Costs of New Military Space Organizations May 2019

example, CBO estimates that a new military department 

would require 5,400 to 7,800 new personnel for overhead and management and increase DoD’s annual costs 

by $1.1 billion to $1.5 billion. A new service within the 

Department of the Air Force would be slightly smaller, 

requiring 4,100 to 6,800 such personnel and increasing annual costs by $820 million to $1.3 billion. A 

new policy directorate, by contrast, would require just 

40 to 300 new personnel and increase DoD’s annual 

costs by $10 million to $60 million. The options would 

also incur onetime startup and transition costs, mostly 

for building new facilities to house the new organizations. CBO estimates that those costs would amount to 

between $1 billion and $3 billion for a new department 

or service.

How Much Might the Administration’s 

Proposal Increase Costs?

The Administration has provided few details about what 

the three organizations that it has proposed would look 

like or how large they would be. For 2020, the initial 

year of creating those organizations, it has requested 

$306 million and 827 positions, and it has also stated 

that it plans to have the new organizations fully running 

within five years. If the organizations were the same 

size as the ones that CBO examines in this report, the 

Administration’s proposal would, when fully implemented, require 5,700 to 9,700 new positions for 

overhead and management, increase DoD’s annual costs 

by $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion, and incur onetime costs 

of $1.8 billion to $4.7 billion, CBO estimates (see the 

second, third, and fourth columns of Table 1). Adding 

any new capabilities would increase those costs.

Types of Military Organizations

DoD might be reorganized in various ways to increase 

its focus on space; this report considers five. A reorganization might result in a new military department, a 

new military service, a new combatant command, a new 

development and acquisition agency, or a new policy 

directorate. Or it might result in some combination of 

those structures, as the Administration has proposed. 

Military Departments

DoD contains three military departments: the 

Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, 

and the Department of the Air Force. Their role, as 

established by title 10 of the U.S. Code, is to provide 

personnel and equipment to commanders during conflicts or peacetime.1

 Each department is led by a civilian 

secretary, who is responsible for administering, recruiting, training, and preparing forces; formulating policies; 

conducting research and development programs; and 

acquiring weapons and other capabilities.

Military Services

There are four military services in DoD: the Army, Navy, 

Air Force, and Marine Corps. It is therefore difficult to 

distinguish the role of a service from the role of a department, because three of those four services exist within 

departments that bear the same names and most of the 

1. 10 U.S.C. §§7001–10001 (2018).

Table 1.

Additional Overhead and Management Personnel and Costs for New Space Organizations

New Department New Service

New Combatant 

Command

New Development 

and Acquisition 

Agency

New Policy 

Directorate

Number of Additional Personnel (FTEs)a 5,400 to 7,800 4,100 to 6,800 400 to 600 1,200 to 2,300 40 to 300

Additional Costs (Millions of 2020 dollars)

Annual 1,080 to 1,540 820 to 1,340 80 to 120 240 to 460 10 to 60

Onetimeb 1,400 to 3,240 1,100 to 3,040 520 to 1,060 220 to 560 Less than 10

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

These estimates incorporate the assumption that the new space organizations would not have new capabilities.

FTE = full-time-equivalent position.

a. Estimates include active-duty, National Guard, and reserve personnel, as well as government-employed civilians, but not contractor employees.

b. Onetime costs consist of service-to-service transfer bonuses, organizational start-up costs, and new infrastructure costs. 
May 2019 The Personnel Requirements and Costs of New Military Space Organizations 3

same responsibilities. The exception is the Marine Corps, 

which is part of the Department of the Navy.

Each of the four services is led by a service chief—a 

four-star general officer who reports to the corresponding 

department’s secretary. The service chiefs are the Chief of 

Staff of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the 

Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps. Each of the service chiefs also serves as a 

member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Like a department, a military service has specific responsibilities under title 10 of the U.S. Code to organize, 

train, equip, prepare, and maintain forces. The service 

then provides those forces and capabilities to combatant 

commands. Also like a military department, a military 

service is responsible for recruiting personnel, formulating policies, conducting research and development, and 

acquiring weapons and other capabilities. 

Combatant Commands

The role of a combatant command, as established 

under the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 

Reorganization Act of 1986, is to apply forces to conduct military operations during a conflict or peacetime. 

Combatant commands are responsible for operations 

in particular geographic or functional areas. They are 

supported by the military services and other combatant commands. During the Iraq War, for example, one 

combatant command, Transportation Command, used 

airlift aircraft provided by the Air Force to move forces to 

Iraq to support a second combatant command, Central 

Command, which is responsible for running military 

operations in the Middle East.

In general, combatant commanders, who are four-star 

general officers, are not responsible for organizing, 

training, or equipping forces; those responsibilities lie 

with the departments and services. However, Special 

Operations Command and Cyber Command have taken 

on some of those roles, blurring the traditional line 

between combatant commands on the one hand and 

departments and services on the other.2

Development and Acquisition Agencies

The purpose of development and acquisition agencies is 

to develop new systems that will be used by the military. 

2. Those two combatant commands received special authority from 

10 U.S.C. §167(e) (2019).

Such agencies exist at various organizational levels. For 

example, the Missile Defense Agency, which develops 

missile-defense systems, is not part of any of the three 

military departments or four services. Rather, it exists 

within DoD as what is called a defensewide agency, and 

its commander reports to the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Research and Engineering. An example more closely 

related to space is the Space and Missile Systems Center, 

which is part of the Air Force. 

Development and acquisition agencies do not conduct 

offensive or defensive operations; that is the responsibility of combatant commands. Nor do they organize, 

train, or equip forces; that is the responsibility of the 

military departments and services.

Policy Directorates

Policy directorates are agencies that establish policy 

in certain areas. For example, the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, or OUSD(I), 

makes policy related to intelligence and counterintelligence in the military. Another example is the Assistant 

Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment, 

and Energy, or SAF/IE, whose office makes policy and 

provides guidance and oversight on all matters pertaining 

to Air Force installations. 

Policy directorates have several organizational features in 

common with development and acquisition agencies. For 

one, they may exist either as an office within the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), as the OUSD(I) 

does, or within one of the military departments or 

services, as the SAF/IE does. Also, they do not conduct 

combat operations or prepare forces.

Establishing New Space Organizations

If the Administration’s proposal to establish a new 

military service within the Department of the Air Force 

was adopted, both the Congress and DoD would have 

to take various steps. There are arguments in favor of the 

Administration’s proposal and also arguments against it.

Recent History

In 2017, the House Armed Services Committee proposed to establish a new military service within the 

Department of the Air Force that would be dedicated 
4 The Personnel Requirements and Costs of New Military Space Organizations May 2019

to space operations.3 That proposal was not enacted 

into law. 

In the summer of 2018, the Administration proposed 

creating a new military department to oversee military 

operations in space. That fall, the Air Force released an 

initial proposal for such a department. Under that proposal, the new department would have been an independent entity whose personnel were separated from the Air 

Force, much as the Air Force itself was separated from 

the Army after the Second World War. 

In March 2019, the Administration advanced a different 

proposal. In its proposed budget for fiscal year 2020, 

it called for the creation of three military organizations 

dedicated to space: an independent service within the 

Department of the Air Force, including a new Under 

Secretary for Space; a combatant command; and a development agency. The Administration proposed setting up 

those organizations over the next five years but did not 

provide details. It requested, however, that the Congress 

authorize 827 positions and $306 million for fiscal year 

2020 to begin the process of creating the new organizations.4

 The Administration also estimated that there 

would be 15,000 personnel in the new space service, but 

it provided no further information, such as how many of 

those positions would be operating forces and how many 

would support those forces.

Steps in Establishing a New Space Organization

Lawmakers would need to take various actions before 

any new space organization could be fully established. 

If the organization was a new department or service, 

the Congress would need to change laws governing the 

structure of the military forces, in particular the law 

that authorizes the current military departments and 

services.5 The Congress would also need to appropriate 

enough funding to establish a new department or service, 

confirm high-ranking military officers and civilians to 

serve in it, and authorize the transfer of forces to it from 

existing military services. 

3. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, 

H.R. 2810, 115th Cong. (2017). 

4. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief 

Financial Officer, Defense Budget Overview (March 2019), 

https://go.usa.gov/xmrGC (PDF, 4.0 MB).

5. 10 U.S.C. §9011 (2019).

Implementing a new space combatant command, space 

development agency, or policy directorate would also 

require the Congress to act. Though DoD could establish 

those entities without the enactment of legislation, the 

Congress would have to confirm high-ranking military 

officers and civilians, provide funding, and possibly 

approve other changes. 

Once the Congress had taken those steps, a new space 

organization would take time to establish. At first there 

would be a transition period so that the military would 

not lose its ability to carry out space operations. A provisional headquarters would probably be established early 

in the transition. During the transition, the Air Force 

would gradually transfer responsibility and personnel 

to the new organization. And even after the new organization assumed full responsibility, it would continue 

to evolve, especially if the Congress chose to increase 

investments and operations in space significantly.

Arguments For and Against Establishing 

New Space Organizations

A long-standing argument for a separate space 

organization—and especially for a new service or 

department—is that the lack of senior advocates for all 

space operations hinders the development of space-based 

capabilities and resources.6 Like all activities in DoD, 

operations in space and space systems must compete for 

resources with other operations and weapon systems. 

And as the Government Accountability Office has noted, 

“there is no single individual, office, or entity in place 

that provides oversight for the overall space program 

acquisition structure.”7 At one point, DoD had designated the Secretary of the Air Force to oversee space 

programs, but even then, that secretary did not have 

authority over organizations outside the Air Force that 

were also involved with space. Supporters argue that creating new space organizations would provide that focus 

and high-level support.

A related argument is that even within the Air Force, 

the focus is on air, not space, and that resources for 

space have suffered as a consequence. Proponents of that 

6. See Center for Security Policy, “Space Power: What Is at Stake, 

What Will It Take” (January 9, 2001), http://tinyurl.com/

ayeg7kn. 

7. Government Accountability Office, Space Acquisitions: Challenges 

Facing DOD as It Changes Approaches to Space Acquisitions, GAO16-471T (March 2016), www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-471T. 
May 2019 The Personnel Requirements and Costs of New Military Space Organizations 5

argument point out that although funding for procurement decreased for both aircraft and space during 

years of budget declines, such funding grew much more 

quickly for aircraft than for space during periods of 

budget increases.8 Some advocates also argue that a space 

force would better prepare the United States to engage in 

offensive operations in space, which might be necessary 

in the future.

Also, some advocates of a space service or department 

note that officers specializing in space have few opportunities, and no dedicated career path, to become generals 

(or the equivalent).9 A separate service or department 

could provide a more stable and attractive career path for 

such officers. It might also create more expertise in the 

community of civilians specializing in space. As a result, 

members of a space service or department might think 

in new and better ways about defense problems, focusing 

on space more than the military currently does.

Critics of a space service or department voice a number 

of arguments. One is that it might only increase overhead costs and bureaucracy.10 Another is that creating 

a constituency for space systems and warfare could lead 

to the development of weapons and doctrines that are 

unnecessary and could even endanger the nation.11

Critics also suggest that the United States has not 

demonstrated the need to conduct offensive operations 

in space, which undermines the argument for a separate service made by some proponents.12 Furthermore, 

critics argue that the benefits of such an organization are 

unclear and that a comprehensive plan with clear objectives should be provided before the creation of any new 

space organization.13 Critics of a new development and 

8. See Todd Harrison, “Why We Need a Space Force” (Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, October 3, 2018), 

http://tinyurl.com/yyxzvkxb.

9. Ibid.

10. See Kaitlyn Johnson, “Why a Space Force Can Wait” (Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, October 3, 2018), 

http://tinyurl.com/y2rpnvne.

11. See Scott Bixby, “Experts Worry President Trump’s ‘Space 

Force’ Could Lead to a Space War,” Daily Beast (July 27, 2018), 

http://tinyurl.com/y8rdcvb5.

12. See Everett Carl Dolman, “Has the Air Force Been a Good 

Steward for Space?” Strategic Studies Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 2 

(Summer 2017), http://tinyurl.com/y4fupnoo. 

13. See Kaitlyn Johnson, “Why a Space Force Can Wait” (Center 

for Strategic and International Studies, October 3, 2018), 

http://tinyurl.com/y2rpnvne.

acquisition agency have similar concerns, arguing that 

such an agency would duplicate the Air Force’s current 

capabilities.

Estimated Costs of the Policy Options

For this analysis, CBO focused on the additional costs of 

creating and maintaining five different kinds of space organizations. That is, the estimates are not estimates of total 

spending for those organizations; they are estimates of how 

much more it would cost to create and maintain such organizations than the federal government currently spends.

CBO also estimated the total number of personnel 

that each kind of space organization would have. Those 

estimates cannot be translated into estimates of total 

costs, because personnel would be only one component 

of spending for a space organization. Other costs would 

include acquisition costs, which CBO did not estimate.

CBO’s estimates of the additional costs of establishing a 

space organization focus on overhead and management 

costs and do not include the cost of adding new capabilities. In that sense, CBO’s estimates probably represent 

the lower end of the range of possible costs. In addition, 

CBO expects that intelligence agencies’ space capabilities, which are substantial, would not be transferred to a 

new space organization. 

The options are generally not mutually exclusive. 

The government could, for instance, create both a 

space service and a space combatant command, as the 

Administration has proposed. The only two options that 

are mutually exclusive are a new space service in a new 

military department and a new space service in an existing military department; DoD would presumably not 

create both organizations.

Finally, the estimates in this report are for illustrative 

policy options; they do not represent cost estimates for 

any particular piece of legislation. For more detail about 

the methods that CBO used to make these estimates, see 

the appendix.

A New Military Department

CBO estimates that a new military department for 

DoD’s space activities would require 5,400 to 7,800 new 

overhead and management positions, including a new 

civilian secretary of the department, a new military 

service chief, and their support staff (see Table 1 on 

page 2). Those new positions would increase DoD’s 
6 The Personnel Requirements and Costs of New Military Space Organizations May 2019

costs by $1.1 billion to $1.5 billion a year. In addition, 

CBO estimates, establishing a new military department 

would incur onetime costs of $1.4 billion to $3.2 billion, 

mostly for new office facilities. 

Furthermore, approximately 22,900 positions would 

need to be transferred from existing military services to 

the new department (see Figure 1). All told, the new 

department would therefore have between 28,300 and 

30,700 positions.

A New Military Service

If a space organization was instead formed as a new military service within an existing department—presumably 

the Department of the Air Force—the cost would be 

slightly smaller. CBO estimates that a new military service would need 4,100 to 6,800 new overhead and management positions, which would increase DoD’s costs by 

$820 million to $1.3 billion a year. The onetime costs 

would be $1.1 billion to $3.0 billion, CBO estimates. 

As with a new military department, approximately 

22,900 positions would be transferred from existing 

military services. In total, the new service would have 

27,000 to 29,700 positions.

For several reasons, a new service would require fewer 

personnel than a new department would. For one thing, 

a new service would not need its own secretary or the 

staff that would support the secretary; instead, the 

Secretary of the Air Force would oversee it, much as the 

Secretary of the Navy oversees both the Navy and the 

Marine Corps. The new military service would have only 

a new service chief, who would report to the Secretary of 

the Air Force.

Also, a new service could make use of some of the existing department’s support functions. For instance, the 

new service could rely on the Air Force to provide it with 

officers, the way most officer candidates for the Marine 

Corps are brought through the Navy’s training programs. 

The Air Force could also provide medical support, as the 

Navy does for the Marines. It is also possible that the Air 

Force could provide base operations and basic training, 

although the Navy does not provide those two support 

functions for the Marines. 

Whether it was part of a new department or an existing 

one, the new service would be responsible for developing 

doctrine to execute missions in space and for conducting 

operations in space to support combatant commanders. 

If DoD created a new combatant command, a space 

service would provide it with forces and capabilities. If 

Figure 1.

Number of Personnel in a New Military Department or Service

Full-Time-Equivalent Positions

Additional Overhead

and Management

Current Support

Personnel

Current Operating 10,800 Forces

12,100

10,800

12,100

5,400

10,800

12,100

7,800

10,800

12,100

4,100

10,800

12,100

6,800

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

Current Department

(Low estimate)

Department

(High estimate)

Service

(Low estimate)

Service

(High estimate)

Source: Congressional Budget Office, using data from the Department of Defense.

These estimates incorporate the assumption that the new space organizations would not have new capabilities. The estimates include active-duty, 

National Guard, and reserve personnel, as well as government-employed civilians, but not contractor employees.

In CBO’s estimates, a new 

military department or service 

would consist of the 22,900 

positions currently performing 

space-related activities 

plus new overhead and 

management positions.
May 2019 The Personnel Requirements and Costs of New Military Space Organizations 7

not, the space service would provide support to existing 

combatant commands. 

The Administration included this option in its 

2020 budget proposal. The proposal calls for a new military service under the Department of the Air Force with 

about 15,000 personnel, most of whom would be transferred from elsewhere in DoD. The proposal requests 

funds only to create an initial headquarters. DoD has 

indicated that it plans to have the new service fully operational in five years, and it has asked the Congress to give 

it authority to transfer positions and funding from the 

existing services during the transition period.

A New Combatant Command

DoD could also create a new combatant command 

for space operations. CBO estimates that such a command would require 400 to 600 additional personnel 

and would increase DoD’s costs by $80 million to 

$120 million a year. CBO estimates that the onetime 

start-up and construction costs would be $500 million to 

$1.1 billion.

A new combatant command would be responsible for 

the command and control of space assets and capabilities to meet national security objectives. Currently, U.S. 

Strategic Command (STRATCOM) has those responsibilities. Creating a new combatant command would 

be similar to the Administration’s separation of Cyber 

Command from STRATCOM to make it a separate 

combatant command in August 2017. 

The Administration has already started to create a 

new space combatant command, but it will need the 

Congress to authorize and appropriate funding and 

approve a commander.14 DoD has not provided any 

estimates of the size of the command.

A New Development and Acquisition Agency

CBO estimates that a new development and acquisition 

agency for space would require 1,200 to 2,300 additional 

personnel and would increase DoD’s costs by $240 million to $460 million a year. The estimated onetime costs 

would be $220 million to $560 million. 

14. See Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, 

memorandum to James N. Mattis, Secretary of Defense 

(December 18, 2018), https://go.usa.gov/xmrGj. 

A new development and acquisition agency would 

develop, test, procure, and field space systems. Because 

it would have no role in organizing and training forces 

or using them in operations, it could exist within the Air 

Force, a new military service, OSD, or the Joint Staff 

(which is the headquarters staff under the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff), or it could be a defensewide agency, like the 

Missile Defense Agency.

DoD has already started to create a defensewide space 

development agency, but it will need Congressional 

approval for funding. Presumably the agency would 

coordinate with the space activities of the Air Force’s 

Space and Missile Center, which currently oversees the 

Air Force’s work on space systems, and with other development agencies.

A New Policy Directorate 

CBO estimates that a new policy directorate would 

require 40 to 300 additional personnel, who would 

increase DoD’s costs by $10 million to $60 million 

a year. The new onetime costs would be less than 

$10 million.

A policy directorate would cost less than a development and acquisition agency because it would not have 

authority over acquisition, testing, or fielding; it would 

therefore have considerably fewer people. It would be 

responsible only for establishing policy and providing 

guidance to secretaries and service chiefs. A new policy 

directorate could be part of the Air Force, a new military 

service, OSD, or the Joint Staff. 

The Administration has not explicitly proposed a space 

policy directorate. However, in its budget request for 

2020, it has proposed an under secretary within the 

Department of the Air Force who would be responsible 

for the overall supervision of space matters. It is unclear 

how large that under secretary’s office would be; it might 

be the size of the policy directorate that CBO has examined, or it might be smaller.

The Administration’s Proposal

The Administration has proposed creating three new 

space organizations: a military service, a separate combatant command, and a development and acquisition 

agency within OSD. In its budget request for 2020, 

the Administration has asked the Congress for the 

authority that it would need to establish those organizations, as well as funding in 2020 to begin the process 
8 The Personnel Requirements and Costs of New Military Space Organizations May 2019

of creating them. But it has provided few details about 

what the organizations would look like or how large they 

would be. For 2020, it has requested $306 million and 

827 positions. 

If the organizations, once fully established, were about 

the same size as the ones that CBO examines in this 

report, the Administration’s proposal would require 

5,700 to 9,700 new positions, increase DoD’s annual 

costs by $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion, and incur onetime 

costs of $1.8 billion to $4.7 billion, CBO estimates. 

Those estimates are the sum of the amounts projected for 

each of the three new organizations.
Appendix: How CBO Estimated the Personnel 

Requirements and Costs of the Policy Options

This appendix provides details about how the 

Congressional Budget Office made the estimates for personnel and costs that it used in this report. CBO made 

five sets of estimates: 

• The number of positions in current operating forces 

that involve space activities,

• The number of positions that currently provide 

support to those operating forces, 

• The number of additional overhead and management 

positions that would be needed to support each of the 

five new space organizations that CBO examined, 

• The annual costs of those additional positions for 

each new organization, and

• The onetime costs of creating each of the 

organizations.

The first two sets of estimates are for current forces and 

contribute only indirectly to CBO’s estimates of additional personnel and costs. CBO has provided them 

for informational purposes, in part because there is 

little public information on how many people in the 

Department of Defense (DoD) are currently involved in 

space activities. 

Positions in Current Operating Forces 

To estimate the number of positions that involve space 

activities in current operating forces, CBO used data 

from DoD’s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for 

fiscal year 2020, searching for all active-duty, National 

Guard, reserve, and civilian positions identified as 

performing space operations. Not all of those positions 

are full time, so CBO converted the numbers into 

full-time-equivalent positions (FTEs). 

CBO found that there were about 10,800 full-timeequivalent personnel identified in the FYDP as 

performing space operations. The agency expects that all 

of those personnel would be transferred into a new space 

organization if it was organized as a department or as a 

service—but because those positions already exist, costs 

would not rise. 

Positions That Currently Provide Support 

Estimating the number of personnel who currently 

support space operating forces was less straightforward, 

because the FYDP does not identify all of those support 

positions. So CBO used a different approach. First, it 

identified the number of support personnel in each of 

eight functions, such as base operations, in the four existing military services (see Table A-1). For example, the 

number of FTEs in base operations ranges from about 

24,200 in the Marine Corps to 42,400 in the Air Force. 

CBO calculated the ratios of support personnel in each 

function to the total number of operating personnel in 

each military service. CBO then found the minimum, 

maximum, and average ratio in each function (see Table 

A-2 on page 11). For example, the ratio of support 

personnel for base operations to operating forces ranged 

from a minimum of 8 percent (for the Army) to a 

maximum of 18 percent (for the Marine Corps). Finally, 

CBO applied those ratios for each support function to 

the current number of space operating forces—that is, 

the 10,800 described above—to estimate how many 

positions currently support those operating forces (see 

Table A-3 on page 12). For base operations, CBO 

multiplied the minimum, average, and maximum 

ratios by 10,800 to get 863, 1,489, and 1,941 FTEs, 

respectively.

The resulting estimate of all support personnel ranged 

from a minimum of about 4,900 to a maximum of about 

13,300; the average was about 9,100, which CBO used 

for its calculations. Of those 9,100 positions, about 

6,300 are identified by DoD in the FYDP as supporting space-related activities today (see Table A-4 on page 

13). And of those 6,300 positions, about 52 percent 
10 May 2019

are in acquisition, 34 percent are in management, and 

14 percent are in training. 

In most categories, DoD identified many fewer support 

personnel as space-related than the average departmentwide ratios would suggest are actually supporting space 

operating forces. However, in two categories, acquisition 

and management, DoD identified more space support 

personnel than those ratios would suggest. So to arrive 

at its estimate of the total number of positions that are 

supporting space operating forces today (about 12,100), 

CBO took the number of positions that DoD identified 

in those two categories and used the departmentwide 

ratios to calculate the number of positions in the other 

six categories (see the right-hand column in Table A-4 on 

page 13). 

If a new military department was formed for space 

activities, all 12,100 of those support personnel would 

presumably be transferred to it. But because the positions 

already exist, costs would not rise.

Similarly, if a new military service was formed, 

CBO estimated that the same number of support 

personnel—12,100—would be transferred to it, also 

without raising costs. That total might overstate the 

number of positions that would be transferred to the 

new service if it relied on its parent department to provide some of those support functions. But in either case, 

DoD’s overall costs would not be affected, because those 

positions would still exist within the parent military 

department.

For a new combatant command, CBO used a different 

approach to estimate the number of personnel who currently provide support to operating forces and would be 

transferred. Because an organization exists today within 

U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) that provides 

many of the functions of a new space command but on 

a smaller scale, CBO assumed that the space support 

personnel currently assigned to STRATCOM—about 

600 positions—would be transferred to the new combatant command and not add to annual costs. (All new 

positions created for the combatant command would 

add to annual costs, as this report explains below.)

CBO’s estimate for a space development and acquisition agency incorporated the assumption that the space 

acquisition agencies that exist in each service today 

would remain in place and that the new agency would 

be an overarching one that oversaw all of DoD’s space 

acquisitions. (That approach would be similar to the 

one that DoD used when it created the Missile Defense 

Agency.) All of the positions in the new agency would 

therefore be new and would add to annual costs, as this 

report explains below.

The office of a principal space adviser exists today in 

the Department of the Air Force. CBO assumes that it 

would remain in place if a new policy directorate was 

established under the Secretary of Defense or the Joint 

Staff. In that case, all the positions in the new policy 

directorate would be new. If instead the new policy 

directorate was established within the Department of the 

Air Force, the positions in the office of the Air Force’s 

space adviser would presumably be transferred to the 

new directorate, reducing the number of new positions. 

Additional Positions for 

Overhead and Management

CBO estimated the number of additional positions—

positions that are not in the military or DoD’s civilian 

Table A-1.

DoD’s Projections of Operating Forces

and Support Positions in 2020

Full-Time-Equivalent Positions

Army Navy

Marine 

Corps Air Force

Operating Forces 483,508 272,091 134,081 268,238

Support Positions

Base Operations 38,721 36,530 24,161 42,440

Command 7,015 6,975 1,041 8,524

Acquisition 27,523 59,111 2,327 34,527

Logistics 39,588 39,683 3,712 37531.8

Management 47,285 29,884 8,171 50,076

Medical 15,760 23,034 1 23,840

Personnel 30,624 24,298 12,048 16,592

Training 94,471 55,191 39,283 69,028

Subtotal 300,986 274,706 90,744 282,560

Total 784,494 546,797 224,825 550,798

Source: Congressional Budget Office, using data from the Department of 

Defense.

Estimates include active-duty, National Guard, and reserve personnel, as 

well as government-employed civilians, but not contractor employees. 

DoD = Department of Defense.

The personnel requirements and costs of new military space organizations
APPENDIX 11

workforce today—that the five options would require for 

overhead and management. Unlike the previous two sets 

of estimates, the estimates of new positions contribute to 

CBO’s estimates of the additional costs of a new space 

organization. 

CBO’s estimates incorporate the assumption that a new 

space organization would continue DoD’s current space 

activities. Any new capabilities that were added to a new 

space organization would entail more personnel and 

costs.

To determine the number of personnel needed for overhead and management functions, CBO reviewed those 

functions in DoD’s existing departments, services, and 

other organizations. The functions that CBO identified 

were the following: 

• A secretary (for a military department), a service 

chief (for a military service), a commander (for a 

combatant command), a civilian director (for a 

development and acquisition agency or a policy 

directorate), and the support staff associated with 

each of their offices;

• Headquarters staff to support the secretary, chief, 

commander, or director (for all five options); 

• Staff who would be assigned to the Joint Staff to 

meet the requirements of the Goldwater-Nichols 

Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 

(for a department or a service); 

• Staff who would be assigned to each of the existing 

combatant commands, also to comply with the law 

(for a department or a service);

• Staff to recruit personnel and provide training (for a 

department or a service); and 

• Staff to provide a range of other management and 

support services, such as financial management and 

personnel management (for a department or service). 

CBO estimated the additional resources needed in 

each of those different categories for each option; some 

requirements applied only to certain options (see Table 

A-5 on page 14).

A New Military Department or Service

Most of the functions for a new department with a new 

embedded service would be the same as those for a new 

service within an existing department, although the 

number of positions assigned to each function might 

vary. The exception is that only a new department would 

have a secretariat.

CBO found that although the number of positions 

assigned to overhead and management functions varies 

by service, there does not appear to be any correlation 

between the size of a service and the size of its overhead 

and management staff for some functions. For example, 

the size of headquarters staff varies little among the Air 

Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, even though the Marine 

Corps is only one-third the size of the other services (see 

Table A-6 on page 15). Similarly, the law requires services to assign personnel to the Joint Staff and to provide 

staff to each of the DoD’s combatant commands. So a 

service that was small, as a space service would probably 

be, would probably still have a staff for overhead and 

management that was larger than the size of the service 

would suggest. 

By CBO’s estimates, a new department would be led by 

a new secretary with a staff of 50 to 65 (see Table A-5 

on page 14). That estimate is based on findings by 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) about 

Table A-2.

Ratio of Support Positions, by Function,

to All Operating Forces

Percent 

 

Minimum 

Among 

Services

Average 

Among 

Services

Maximum 

Among 

Services

Base Operations 8.0 13.8 18.0

Command 0.8 2.0 3.2

Acquisition 1.7 10.5 21.7

Logistics 2.8 9.9 14.6

Management 6.1 11.4 18.7

Medical 0 5.2 8.9

Personnel 6.2 7.6 9.0

Training 19.5 23.7 29.3

Source: Congressional Budget Office, using data from the Department of 

Defense.

Ratios were calculated with full-time-equivalent positions for activeduty, National Guard, and reserve personnel, as well as governmentemployed civilians, but not contractor employees. 

The personnel requirements and costs of new military space organizations
12 May 2019

the size of secretaries’ staffs.1 GAO found that the size of 

secretaries’ offices in existing departments ranged from 

49 positions in the Navy to 65 in the Army. 

A new service would also require a new service chief, 

whether that service was in a new or an existing department. The chief would have a staff of between 100 and 

150, CBO estimates. That estimate is also based on 

GAO’s findings about the size of the service chiefs’ staffs. 

The number of management headquarters staff for a new 

department would be between 2,200 and 3,400 positions, CBO estimates; for a new service, it would be 

between 1,000 and 2,600 positions. Those estimates 

too are based on GAO’s analyses, which focused on 

the Office of the Secretary for each department and 

the service headquarters staff that supports each service 

chief. (For example, the Army Staff supports the Chief 

of Staff of the Army, and the Air Staff supports the Chief 

of Staff of the Air Force.) The number of management 

1. Government Accountability Office, Defense Headquarters: DOD 

Needs to Reassess Personnel Requirements for the Office of Secretary of 

Defense, Joint Staff, and Military Service Secretariats, GAO-15-10 

(January 2015), www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-10. DoD has 

undertaken several initiatives since that report was released, but 

budget documents for 2019 suggest that military departments’ 

headquarters are still about the same size.

headquarters personnel for departments ranges from 

2,200 in the Department of the Navy to 3,400 in the 

Department of the Army, GAO found; for services, it 

ranges from 1,000 for the Navy to 2,600 for the Marine 

Corps.

There would be little to no difference between a 

department and a service in the number of positions 

assigned to the Joint Staff, the combatant commands, 

and recruiting and training, in CBO’s judgment. CBO 

estimates that 30 to 40 people from a new department 

or a new service would be assigned to the Joint Staff. To 

arrive at that estimate, CBO multiplied its estimate of 

the number of military personnel in a space department 

(between 17,400 and 18,900 positions) by the fraction 

of DoD’s active-duty force that the services provide to 

the Joint Staff (0.2 percent). CBO derived that fraction 

using the size of the Joint Staff in 2013 (2,570), which 

was reported by GAO, and the size of DoD’s active-duty 

force in 2013 (1.4 million).

CBO also estimates that a new department or service 

would have to assign 50 to 100 positions to each of 

10 combatant commands in DoD, for a total of 500 

to 1,000 positions—an estimate that is based on the 

average number of positions assigned for the same purpose by existing military services. And CBO estimates 

that the recruiting and training functions would need 

2,000 to 2,200 positions in a department and 1,900 to 

2,100 positions in a service. That estimate is based on the 

average share of active-duty forces that existing services 

allocate to those activities (about 11 percent), which 

CBO applied to its estimates of the number of activeduty positions in a new department or a new service.

Other management and support staff would number 

550 to 900 positions in a department or a service, CBO 

estimates. Those estimates are based on the share of staff 

that the existing departments and services devote to such 

functions as financial management, personnel management, installation management, and communications, 

as reported in the services’ budget books for 2019 and as 

indicated by various other data.

Also, if a new service was created within an existing 

department, it might need fewer overhead and management staff than CBO has estimated if the department’s 

two services shared some functions. Or the opposite 

could occur. The Marine Corps provides an example 

of both phenomena: It has just as large a management 

Table A-3.

Estimated Number of Positions Currently 

Supporting Space Operating Forces

Full-Time-Equivalent Positions 

Based on the 

Minimum

Ratio Among 

Services

Based on the 

Average

Ratio Among 

Services

Based on the 

Maximum

Ratio Among 

Services

Base Operations 863 1,489 1,941

Command 84 215 342

Acquisition 187 1,132 2,341

Logistics 298 1,065 1,571

Management 657 1,226 2,011

Medical 0 555 958

Personnel 666 820 968

Training 2,105 2,555 3,157

Total 4,860 9,056 13,289

Source: Congressional Budget Office, using data from the Department of 

Defense.

Estimates include active-duty, National Guard, and reserve personnel, as 

well as government-employed civilians, but not contractor employees. 

The personnel requirements and costs of new military space organizations
APPENDIX 13

headquarters staff as any other service does, perhaps 

because that staff must perform some of the functions 

of a secretariat, and yet it has proportionally the smallest 

recruiting and training staff, because the Navy provides 

some training for many of its officer candidates and new 

officers.

Furthermore, if a new service was created within an existing department, there would probably be some growth 

in the secretariat of the existing department, because it 

would now oversee and create policy for two military services. (That growth is not included in CBO’s estimate.) 

For example, the Administration’s proposal to double the 

number of Air Force under secretaries by creating a new 

Under Secretary for Space would require an increase in 

staff to support that under secretary. 

A New Combatant Command

CBO estimates that a new combatant command would 

need 420 to 640 new positions to staff its commander’s 

office and management headquarters. Those positions 

would be in addition to the roughly 600 space support 

personnel who are currently assigned to STRATCOM 

and would probably be transferred to the new combatant command (but would not add to annual costs). The 

combatant command would not need any of the other 

functions that CBO identified. 

CBO’s estimate is based on the size of U.S. Space 

Command before it was eliminated in 2002 and its remnants moved to STRATCOM. U.S. Space Command 

varied in size over the years, ranging from about 

1,000 positions to about 1,200. CBO constructed its 

estimates by subtracting the 600 personnel engaged in 

space activities in STRATCOM today.

A New Development and Acquisition Agency

CBO estimates that a new development and acquisition agency for space would have a headquarters staff of 

1,200 to 2,300 positions. Because the agency would be 

new, all of those positions would be new and would add 

to DoD’s annual costs. The high end of CBO’s estimate 

is based on the size of the Missile Defense Agency, as 

reported in DoD’s budget justification books for 2019. 

The low end reflects an agency that is half that size. 

A New Policy Directorate

CBO estimates that a new policy directorate would 

have roughly 40 to 300 positions. All of them would be 

new because there is no such organization today. CBO’s 

estimates are based on an examination of similar organizations within DoD. The high end of CBO’s estimate 

is similar to the number of positions in the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. The low end 

is similar to the number of positions in several smaller 

policy organizations in DoD.

Annual Costs of the Additional Positions for 

Overhead and Management

To estimate the cost of the additional positions that 

would be necessary for each option, CBO multiplied the 

number of those positions by $198,600 (see Table A-5). 

That dollar amount is CBO’s estimate of the average 

cost of adding an FTE in 2020 dollars. The estimate was 

developed by dividing the Air Force’s total operation and 

support funding, including Defense Health Program 

costs for military personnel, by the number of FTEs 

Table A-4.

CBO’s and DoD’s Estimates of the 

Number of Positions Currently 

Supporting Space Operating Forces 

Full-Time-Equivalent Positions

Estimate Based 

on Average 

Service Ratios

Number 

Identified

by DoD

Number Not 

Identified

by DoD

Estimate 

of Total 

Positions

Base Operations 1,489 0 1,489 1,489

Command 215 0 215 215

Acquisition 1,132 3,243 0 3,243

Logistics 1,065 0 1,065 1,065

Management 1,226 2,162 0 2,162

Medical 555 0 555 555

Personnel 820 8 812 820

Training 2,555 872 1,683 2,555

Total 9,056 6,285 5,818 12,103

Source: Congressional Budget Office, using data from the Department of 

Defense.

The first column shows the number of positions calculated on the basis 

of departmentwide average ratios for each category (see Table A-3). 

The second column shows the number identified by DoD. For most 

categories, DoD identified fewer personnel than the ratios would 

suggest, but for two, it identified more. So for those two categories, CBO 

used DoD’s numbers as its final estimates, which are shown in the righthand column. For the remaining categories, CBO used the calculations 

that were based on departmentwide average ratios.

Estimates include active-duty, National Guard, and reserve personnel, as 

well as government-employed civilians, but not contractor employees.

DoD = Department of Defense.

The personnel requirements and costs of new military space organizations
14 May 2019

identified in the FYDP for fiscal year 2020. CBO’s estimate reflects the Air Force’s full cost per FTE—including 

all direct costs for pay and benefits, as well as the operation and maintenance funding that supports each FTE.2

It is higher than the estimate of $175,000 made by the 

Center for Strategic and International Studies, which 

excludes Defense Health Program costs.3

Although DoD’s personnel data (and therefore CBO’s 

estimates of additional positions) do not include contractors, the costs of contractors are incorporated in CBO’s 

estimate because those costs are included in the operation and maintenance funding that CBO used in making 

its estimate. If the ratio of contractors to FTEs in space 

activities was greater than the Air Force average, costs 

could be higher than CBO estimated.

2. CBO used the Air Force’s cost per FTE because the great 

majority of personnel involved in space activities today are Air 

Force personnel.

3. See Todd Harrison, “How Much Will the Space Force Cost?” 

(Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2018), 

http://tinyurl.com/y5s3mytp. 

Onetime Costs

Creating new organizations would have some onetime 

costs. CBO identified three types of onetime costs: 

start-up costs for such items as signs, uniforms, and 

stationery; transfer bonuses that a new service may have 

to pay to encourage current personnel in other services 

to join; and construction costs for new buildings and 

facilities. CBO estimates that total onetime costs could 

range from a few million dollars to $3.2 billion.

Start-Up Costs

Depending on the size of the organization, start-up costs 

could range from $1 million to $100 million, excluding 

uniforms, CBO estimated. Those ranges are based on the 

Air Force’s operation and maintenance budget requests 

to create U.S. Cyber Command, which totaled about 

$50 million. Start-up costs would be lower for a smaller 

organization, such as a policy directorate, and higher for 

a larger one, such as a service or department. 

In addition, CBO estimates that developing and stocking 

at least two types of uniforms for the military personnel in a new department or service would cost roughly 

Table A-5.

CBO’s Estimates of Additional Overhead and Management

Personnel and Costs for New Space Organizations

New Department New Service

New Combatant 

Command

New Development 

and Acquisition 

Agency

New Policy 

Directorate

Number of Additional Personnel (FTEs)a

Secretary or Director 50 to 65 0 0 5 to 15 3 to 5

Chief or Commander 100 to 150 100 to 150 20 to 40 0 0

Management Headquarters Staff 2,200 to 3,400 1,000 to 2,600 400 to 600 1,200 to 2,300 40 to 300

Joint Staff 30 to 40 30 to 40 0 0 0

Combatant Command Component 500 to 1,000 500 to 1,000 0 0 0

Recruiting and Training 2,000 to 2,200 1,900 to 2,100 0 0 0

Other Management and Support 550 to 900 550 to 900 0 0 0

Total 5,400 to 7,800 4,100 to 6,800 420 to 640 1,205 to 2,315 43 to 305

Additional Costs (Millions of 2020 dollars)

Annual 1,080 to 1,540 820 to 1,340 80 to 120 240 to 460 10 to 60

Onetimeb 1,400 to 3,240 1,100 to 3,040 520 to 1,060 220 to 560 1 to 5

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

These estimates incorporate the assumption that the new space organizations would not have new capabilities.

FTE = full-time-equivalent position.

a. Estimates include active-duty, National Guard, and reserve personnel, as well as government-employed civilians, but not contractor employees.

b. Onetime costs consist of service-to-service transfer bonuses, organizational start-up costs, and new infrastructure costs.

The personnel requirements and costs of new military space organizations
APPENDIX 15

$200 million. That estimate is based on the recent 

experiences of the existing services when developing new 

uniforms.

Transfer Bonuses

DoD would probably pay transfer bonuses if a new space 

organization was formed as a military department or as a 

military service. In the other cases, personnel could simply be ordered to move as part of the regular assignment 

process. DoD has asked the Congress for the authority 

to order personnel to transfer to a new department or 

service, but the department is likely to offer bonuses first 

to encourage people to move voluntarily, much as it does 

to encourage people to stay in the military (or to encourage them to leave during a drawdown). Involuntary 

transfers would probably increase the number of people 

who left when their term was up, which would require 

the new service to recruit more people and could impair 

its functioning. 

CBO estimates that bonuses would amount to between 

$50 million and $140 million. That estimate is based 

on two further estimates: that the average bonus would 

equal $10,000, which reflects DoD’s experience with 

service-to-service transfer bonuses in 2006; and that 

5,300 to 14,100 military personnel would receive those 

bonuses. The high end of that range reflects a scenario 

in which all transferred military personnel get bonuses; 

the low end reflects a scenario in which only the military personnel that support space operating forces do. 

Civilians typically do not receive transfer bonuses.

New Buildings and Facilities

To estimate the construction cost of new buildings and 

facilities to house a space organization, CBO examined 

recent construction for other defense and government 

organizations. For a new department, service, or development and acquisition agency, CBO concluded that 

the costs would come to about $200,000 per FTE in the 

new organization. Construction costs would range from 

$1.1 billion to $2.8 billion for a new military department 

and from $800 million to $2.6 billion for a new service, 

CBO estimates. The low ends of those ranges incorporate the assumption that the new facilities would house 

all of the new personnel (and use CBO’s lower estimate 

of the number of new positions for a department or a 

service). The high ends incorporate the assumption that 

the new facilities would house all of the new personnel 

(and use CBO’s higher estimate of the number of new 

positions) and half of the 12,100 support personnel that 

would transfer to the new department or service. For a 

new development and acquisition agency, CBO estimates 

that construction costs would range from $200 million to 

$500 million because all of the positions would be new.

CBO’s estimate of the cost of facilities for a new combatant 

command is based on recent construction costs for combatant commands—specifically, about $500 million for the 

newly established U.S. Cyber Command and more than 

$1 billion for a new headquarters building at U.S. Strategic 

Command. CBO did not estimate construction costs for 

a space policy directorate, because it assumed that such a 

small organization would be housed in existing space.

Other Onetime Costs

Other onetime or start-up costs—such as the cost of 

developing or buying new information technology systems, management systems, or supply chains—could add 

to the cost of establishing a space organization. CBO did 

not account for those costs because they are difficult to 

anticipate. Instead, the agency’s estimates incorporate the 

assumption that new space organizations would rely on 

existing systems or on systems that are not more expensive than those funded in typical operation and maintenance budgets.

Table A-6.

Number of Headquarters Personnel

Authorized for 2013

Military Civilian Total

Memorandum:

Total Size of 

Service in 2013

Office of the Secretary 

of Defense 552 2,094 2,646 n.a.

Joint Staff 1,455 1,117 2,572 n.a.

Army 997 2,642 3,639 1,371,268

Navy 1,035 1,341 2,376 591,905

Marines 1,303 1,281 2,584 246,573

Air Force 1,458 1,131 2,589 685,089

Sources: Government Accountability Office; each service’s budget 

materials for fiscal year 2013.

Estimates include active-duty, National Guard, and reserve personnel, as 

well as government-employed civilians, but not contractor employees.

n.a. = not applicable.

The personnel requirements and costs of new military space organizations
List of Tables and Figures

Figure

1. Number of Personnel in a New Military Department or Service 6

Tables

1. Additional Overhead and Management Personnel and Costs for New 

Space Organizations 2

A-1. DoD’s Projections of Operating Forces and Support Positions in 2020 10

A-2. Ratio of Support Positions, by Function, to All Operating Forces 11

A-3. Estimated Number of Positions Currently Supporting Space Operating Forces 12

A-4. CBO’s and DoD’s Estimates of the Number of Positions Currently 

Supporting Space Operating Forces 13

A-5. CBO’s Estimates of Additional Overhead and Management Personnel 

and Costs for New Space Organizations 14

A-6. Number of Headquarters Personnel Authorized for 2013 15
About This Document

This Congressional Budget Office report was prepared at the request of the Chairman and 

Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In keeping with CBO’s mandate to 

provide objective, impartial analysis, the report makes no recommendations.

Jason Coleman (a visiting fellow at CBO from the Air Force), Adam Talaber, and F. Matthew 

Woodward prepared the report with guidance from David Mosher and Edward G. Keating. 

Sebastien Gay, Ray Hall, Deborah Kilroe, T. J. McGrath (formerly of CBO), David Newman, 

and Matt Schmit of CBO assisted in the research. The report has substantially benefited 

from Jason Coleman’s detailed knowledge, and because of his association with the Air Force, 

CBO sought additional internal and external review of the report to ensure its objectivity. 

Kory Fierstine of CNA, Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 

Margaux Hoar of CNA, Steve Jacques of Velos Consulting, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings 

Institution, and Lara Robillard of CBO provided helpful comments. (The assistance of external 

reviewers implies no responsibility for the final product, which rests solely with CBO.) 

Jeffrey Kling and Robert Sunshine reviewed the report, and Benjamin Plotinsky edited it. 

Robert Rebach prepared it for publication and drew the cover illustration. An electronic version is 

available on CBO’s website (www.cbo.gov/publication/55178).

CBO continually seeks feedback to make its work as useful as possible. Please send any feedback 

to communications@cbo.gov.

Keith Hall

Director

May 2019