Space Capstone Publication, Spacepower (SCP)

Headquarters United States Space Force

June 2020

Dedicated to past, present, and future spacepower pioneers. 

The inaugural Space Capstone Publication, Spacepower (SCP)

is capstone doctrine for the United States Space Force and 

represents our Service’s first articulation of an independent theory of 

spacepower. This publication answers why spacepower is vital for our 

Nation, how military spacepower is employed, who military space 

forces are, and what military space forces value. In short, this capstone 

document is the foundation of our professional body of knowledge as 

we forge an independent military Service committed to space operations. Like all doctrine, the SCP remains subject to the policies and 

strategies that govern its employment. Military spacepower has deterrent and coercive capacities — it provides independent options for 

National and Joint leadership but achieves its greatest potential when 

integrated with other forms of military power. As we grow spacepower theory and doctrine, we must do so in a way that fosters greater 

integration with the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast 

Guard. It is only by achieving true integration and interdependence 

that we can hope to unlock spacepower’s full potential. 

Agility, innovation, and boldness have always been the touchstone 

traits of military space forces. Today, we must harness these traits to 

pioneer a new Service and a new professional body of knowledge. 

This capstone doctrine is a point-of-departure toward that goal, not a 

final adjudication. Given the nascent state of spacepower theory, this 

publication will inevitably evolve over time as it is applied, evaluated, 

and refined. Therefore, military space forces are encouraged to read, 

critique, debate, and improve upon the ideas that follow. 

It is an honor to serve with you on this journey. 

JOHN W. RAYMOND

General, USSF

Chief of Space Operations 

FOREWORD FROM THE CSO

ii iii
PREFACE

THE SPIRIT OF ORBITAL FLIGHT

The benefits to life on Earth from the exploitation of space are 

inescapable. Never again will our way of living, even at its most fundamental levels, go untouched by the technological marvels orbiting 

our planet. These systems must be protected from those who would 

wish to harm them, and in doing so threaten peace and prosperity 

for free people in every corner of the world. Our draw to explore the 

unknown, our human love for uncovering our ignorance and replacing 

it with understanding, will only be possible if we secure the domain of 

orbital flight. 

Our look outward is our look inward; the fundamental desire to 

know our place among the stars. Human activity and expansion across 

the domain are not inevitable. The success of these endeavors is only 

possible if we secure the peaceful use of space, free for any who seek 

to expand our understanding of the greatest frontier. Today, and far 

into the future, our military spacepower will be foundational to orbital 

exploration and development. It is the duty of our Service to fight 

tirelessly for this mission and take up this awesome mantle the Nation 

has laid upon us. 

The eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the 

planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by 

a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace.1

John F. Kennedy, 1962

35th U.S. President

Humanity has long been drawn to gaze upward and ponder the mysteries of the heavens. We are defined by our hunger 

to explore the universe and our unending quest for knowledge of our 

place in the cosmos. This drive to push back the dark edges of the map 

and demystify our frontiers is not without conflict. Just as on land, on 

the seas, and in the sky, the great expanse beyond Earth is now contested.

Once the great powers of the world competed for technological 

supremacy in outer space to demonstrate the superiority of their societies. To win was to be fastest, highest, farthest, or first. The United 

States and its Allies firmly won that early space race. Today, however, 

that competition has evolved, and with heavy consequences. Since 

this initial competition, the domain of space itself has not changed. 

The harshness of its environment, its physics, and the vastness of its 

expanse challenge us today just as it challenged the earliest explorers. 

Humankind has changed, and our potential adversaries’ actions have 

significantly increased the likelihood of warfare in the space domain. 

Our destiny as a free country to strive even higher in space remains the 

same, but the need for security and defense – as only military force can 

provide – is the stark new reality of our mission. 

iv v
MILITARY SPACEPOWER 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The U.S. desires a peaceful, secure, stable, and accessible space 

domain. Strength and security in space enables freedom of action 

in other warfighting domains while contributing to international 

security and stability. The U.S. must adapt its national security 

space organizations, doctrine, and capabilities to deter and defeat 

aggression and protect national interests in space.

The space domain is the area above the altitude where atmospheric 

effects on airborne objects becomes negligible. The value of the 

space domain arises from an ability to conduct activities with 

unrivaled reach, persistence, endurance, and responsiveness, 

while affording legal overflight of any location on the earth. 

Because of these attributes, spacepower is inherently global. 

Military space forces are the warfighters who protect, defend, 

and project spacepower. They provide support, security, stability, 

and strategic effects by employing spacepower in, from, and 

to the space domain. This necessitates close collaboration and 

cooperation with the U.S. Government, Allies, and partners and 

in accordance with domestic and international law.

Not only are space operations global, they are also multi-domain. 

A successful attack against any one segment (or combination 

of segments), whether terrestrial, link, or space, of the space 

architecture can neutralize a space capability; therefore, space 

domain access, maneuver, and exploitation require deliberate 

and synchronized defensive operations across all three segments. 

As a lean, mission-focused, digital Service, the United States Space 

Force values organizational agility, innovation, and boldness. 

Elevating these traits starts with empowering small teams and 

prizing measured risk-taking as opportunities to rapidly learn 

and adapt. 

vi vii
CONTENTS

Foreword from the CSO ..............................................................iii

Preface ....................................................................................... iv

Introduction ................................................................................ xi

Chapter 1: The Space Domain .....................................................2

Attributes of Orbital Flight ....................................................3

Space System Architecture......................................................5

Space Operations ...................................................................5

 Physical Dimension..........................................................5

 Network Dimension ........................................................7

 Cognitive Dimension.......................................................8

Challenges of Orbital Flight...................................................8

 Barriers to Access, Movement, and Recovery....................8

 Hazards of Orbital Flight .................................................9

Chapter 2: National Spacepower...............................................12

Politics, Policy, and the Instruments of Power.......................12

National Spacepower............................................................13

Unified Space Action............................................................13

Chapter 3: Military Spacepower................................................16

War......................................................................................16

 War’s Enduring Nature...................................................17

 War’s Modern Character ................................................17

 Coercion and Victory in War .........................................19

 Space Warfare.................................................................21

Value of Military Spacepower...............................................21

Full Spectrum Military Spacepower......................................23

 Key Topology in the Physical Dimension .......................24

 Protecting Access in the Network Dimension.................24

 Affecting the Cognitive Dimension................................25

 The Electromagnetic Maneuver Space............................25

Chapter 4: Employment of Space Forces ....................................28

Preserve Freedom of Action .................................................28

Enable Joint Lethality and Effectiveness ...............................31

Provide Independent Options - In, From, and To.................31

 Employment Conditions................................................33

Core Competencies of Military Spacepower in the 

United States Space Force.....................................................33

 Space Security ................................................................35

 Combat Power Projection ..............................................36

 Space Mobility and Logistics..........................................37

 Information Mobility.....................................................38

 Space Domain Awareness...............................................38

Command and Control of Space Forces...............................40

Stewards of the Domain.......................................................43

Chapter 5: Military Space Forces...............................................46

Developing Spacepower Expertise........................................46

Spacepower Mentality ..........................................................48

 Space Warfighters...........................................................48

 Mastery of Space............................................................49

 Spacepower Disciplines..................................................50

Art of Space Warfare — Breadth, Depth, and Context.........53

Leadership............................................................................55

Warfighting Readiness..........................................................56

Mission Execution................................................................57

Agility — Innovation — Boldness .......................................58

Acknowledgement.......................................................................60

References ...................................................................................61

viii ix
INTRODUCTION

Our travels beyond the Earth propel scientific discoveries that improve 

our lives in countless ways here, right here, at home: powering vast 

new industry, spurring incredible new technology, and providing the 

space security we need to protect the American people.2 

Donald J. Trump, 2018 

45th U.S. President

I

n direct response to the launch of the Sputnik 1 Soviet spacecraft, pioneers in the U.S. military orchestrated a series of 

milestones that propelled America’s status as the preeminent spacefaring Nation. Launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on 31 

January 1958, the U.S. Army spacecraft Explorer 1 was the first American spacecraft to orbit the Earth.3 Two months later, the U.S. Navy 

successfully orbited Vanguard 1, demonstrating the first solar powered 

spacecraft.4 That same year, the Advanced Research Project Agency, 

launched, and successfully demonstrated the world’s first communications spacecraft. These milestones paved the way for Project Corona, a 

collaboration between the U.S. Air Force and the Central Intelligence 

Agency. Launched on 18 August 1960 as part of Project Corona, 

the Discoverer 14 spacecraft returned surveillance imagery of over 

1,650,000 square miles of Soviet Union territory.5 Through these successive accomplishments, the U.S. military established that humanity 

could control and exploit space in pursuit of prosperity and security. 

Since these early milestones, the U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and 

U.S. Air Force have each developed space capabilities that enhance 

landpower, seapower, airpower, and cyberpower, respectively. This 

decentralized context has shaped U.S. military thinking about space 

for the last 60 years. A product of this institutional structure is that 

current military theory and doctrine almost exclusively focus on space 

as an adjunct to other forms of military power without capturing 

the direct and independent impact space has on U.S. prosperity and 

security. The doctrine presented in the following chapters elevates 

spacepower as a distinct formulation of military power on par with 

landpower, seapower, airpower, and cyberpower. 

x xi
While Chapters 1 through 4 describe why spacepower is vital 

and how military spacepower is employed, Chapter 5 underscores the 

men and women who make military spacepower possible. Spacepower 

requires explorers, diplomats, entrepreneurs, scientists, developers, 

and warfighters. Military space forces — protectors of America’s space 

interests — are first and foremost the warfighters who protect, defend, 

and project U.S. spacepower. These professionals must simultaneously 

commit themselves to two demanding professions: warfighting and 

the mastery of space. This duality blends science and art and forms the 

core of the purpose, identity, and culture of military space forces. 

As a lean, mission-focused, digital Service, the United States Space 

Force values organizational agility, innovation, and boldness. Elevating 

these traits starts with empowering small teams and prizing measured 

risk-taking as opportunities to rapidly learn and adapt. These principles apply equally to operations and day-to-day tasks. The United 

States Space Force must draw upon these traits to relentlessly advance 

military spacepower for the Nation.

INTRODUCTION

Instead of solely focusing laterally on other domains, an independent conception of spacepower must first recognize the inherent value 

of the space domain and the tremendous influence space has on U.S. 

prosperity and security. Chapter 1 of this publication defines the space 

domain and describes the attributes of orbital flight. The United States 

harnesses these attributes for exploration, communications, remote 

sensing, and science. In all cases, the value of orbital flight arises from 

an ability to conduct activities with unrivaled reach, persistence, endurance, responsiveness, and speed. Chapter 2 applies these attributes 

by introducing national spacepower as the totality of a nation’s use of 

space capabilities in pursuit of national prosperity and security. Under 

this formulation, space is simultaneously a source and conduit through 

which a nation can generate and apply diplomatic, informational, 

military and economic power.

Like any source of national power, the United States must cultivate, develop, and advance spacepower in order to ensure national 

prosperity and security. Military spacepower — introduced in Chapter 

3 — exists to preserve that prosperity and security. As a unique form 

of military power, military spacepower leverages space capabilities to 

accomplish military objectives in support of national policy and strategy. Military spacepower has deterrent and coercive capacities and the 

United States Space Force is tasked to provide independent options for 

national leadership. However, military spacepower achieves its greatest 

potential when integrated with other forms of military power.

Chapter 4 describes the proper employment of military space forces. Under this framework, military space forces conduct prompt and 

sustained space operations, accomplishing three Cornerstone Responsibilities — Preserve Freedom of Action in the space domain, Enable 

Joint Lethality and Effectiveness, and Provide Independent Options to 

U.S. national leadership capable of achieving national objectives. These 

three responsibilities form the vital purpose of military spacepower. In 

order to accomplish these Cornerstone Responsibilities, military space 

forces must be organized, trained, and equipped to perform five Core 

Competencies: Space Security; Combat Power Projection, Space Mobility and Logistics; Information Mobility; and Space Domain Awareness 

(SDA). Command and control, and stewardship of the domain, enable 

military space forces to accomplish these core competencies. 

As the custodian of military spacepower, the United States Space 

Force has three Cornerstone Responsibilities: Preserve Freedom of 

Action, Enable Joint Lethality and Effectiveness, and Provide Independent Options. These responsibilities are fed by the five Core Competencies of Space Security, Combat Power Projection, Space Mobility 

and Logistics, Information Mobility, and Space Domain Awareness. In 

turn, these Service competencies require specialization in the spacepower disciplines of Orbital Warfare, Space Electromagnetic Warfare, 

Space Battle Management, Space Access and Sustainment, Military 

Intelligence, Cyber Operations, and Engineering/Acquisitions.

xii xiii
applicable, this document seeks to maintain alignment with Joint doctrine, allowing the United States Space Force to effectively collaborate 

with the Joint Force.

The inaugural Space Capstone Publication is the foundational 

work of the United States Space Force’s professional body of knowledge. As the new Service develops and gains operational experience in 

the emerging strategic environment, so too will its doctrine. Capstone 

doctrine, in its true form, does not dictate operational responses: it 

serves as a baseline — founded on historical experience yet propelled 

by an enduring vision — that allows leaders to tailor their decisions 

to specific situations. Over time, we can expect additional operational and tactical-level publications to follow as military spacepower is 

applied, evaluated, and refined.

The proposed doctrine hierarchy for the United States Space Force 

consists of three levels. There will be a capstone document, under the 

purview of the Chief of Space Operations (CSO), which articulates 

the purpose, identity, and values for the Service, DoD, interagency, 

and Allied communities. The intermediate level of doctrine is operational, providing the organizational support needed for effective 

military efforts, and further developing doctrine related to the Core 

Competencies. The final level of doctrine is tactical, which will be 

referred to as Tactical Standard Operations Procedures (TACSOPs). 

TACSOPs will codify lessons learned, allowing space force members to 

apply the various disciplines.

The capstone document typically will be reviewed on a 4-year 

cycle as the principles should not fundamentally change, although this 

may occur more often in the early years as the United States Space 

Force’s organization and processes evolve. The field command doctrine 

center will review the operational doctrine on a two-year cycle. If a 

need is determined for “flash” changes within doctrine, the United 

States Space Force’s doctrine center commander will have the ability to 

review/update relevant documents, incorporating changes within time 

periods as short as three months. Finally, TACSOPs will use an ongoing, online, and collaborative process, approving changes at the lowest 

appropriate command level, allowing the United States Space Force to 

rapidly adapt and change with its hallmark agility and boldness.

INTRODUCTION

All spacepower disciplines are required to execute each Core Competency, just as integration of all Core Competencies is necessary to realize the United States Space Force’s Cornerstone Responsibilities. As 

all these areas are interdependent and interlinked, a space professional 

can follow the thread from their training in a specific role through to 

the spacepower disciplines, to the Core Competency it is supporting, 

to the Cornerstone Responsibility; thus a space professional should see 

how his/her daily tasking contributes to the safety and security of the 

Nation.

The Space Capstone Publication is the inaugural doctrine manual 

for the United States Space Force, providing a basis for training and 

education, and informs decision-making, mission analysis, objectives, 

and the development of military space strategy in support of national 

security, national defense, and national military strategies. In articulating spacepower as a distinct form of military power, this capstone 

document introduces new terms and concepts to the Department of 

Defense (DoD), interagency, and Allied communities that represent 

articulation of an independent theory of spacepower. However, when 

CORNERSTONE RESPONSIBILITES

1. Preserve Freedom of Action

2. Enable Joint Lethality & Effectiveness

3. Provide Independent Options

Why spacepower is vital 

to prosperity & security

CORE COMPETENCIES

1. Space Security

2. Combat Power Projection

3. Space Mobility & Logistics

4. Information Mobility

5. Space Domain Awareness

How military spacepower 

is employed

SPACEPOWER DISCIPLINES

1. Orbital Warfare

2. Space Electromagnetic Warfare

3. Space Battle Management

4. Space Access & Sustainment

5. Military Intelligence

6. Cyber Operations

7. Engineering / Acquisitions

Who is needed, & the skill 

sets they will employ

xiv xv
CHAPTER 1

There is something more important than any ultimate weapon. That THE SPACE DOMAIN

is the ultimate position — the position of total control over Earth that 

lies somewhere out in space.6 

Lyndon B. Johnson, 1958

United States Senator

Space is the domain of orbital flight. Humanity’s ability to 

achieve and exploit orbital flight — sustained motion beyond 

the Earth’s atmosphere based on gravitational trajectories — ushered 

in the Space Age. Once orbital flight became a reality, humanity was 

able to exploit the domain’s unique attributes. Orbital flight derives 

value from the unique characteristics of the space domain’s physical 

environment. Thus, an understanding of spacepower must start with 

an appreciation of the space domain itself. 

CHAPTER 1 | SPACE DOMAIN

1 2
Thus, in totality, orbital flight enables a range of activities that are 

inherently remote, wireless, near instantaneous, and global. 

The boundaries of sovereign airspace do not extend into space, and 

the earliest applications of orbital flight established the international 

norm of unrestricted overflight for all spacecraft. This makes space a 

shared environment equally open to all members of the international 

community. Under this arrangement, the scientific and economic potential of the space domain is boundless. As we look to the near future, 

orbital flight affords access to an immeasurable supply of economic 

resources. These resources represent untapped economic opportunities 

that further elevate the value of the space domain and the imperative 

for orbital flight. 

Orbit or Orbital Flight? Satellite or Spacecraft?

An orbit is any path through space an object follows based on 

the pull of gravity. For example, the Moon is in orbit around the 

Earth and the Earth is in orbit around the Sun. While orbits are 

commonly depicted as circular or elliptical paths, orbits can be 

repeating or non-repeating. Orbital flight (also referred to as spaceflight) is the act of deliberately manipulating gravitationally curved 

trajectories in order to transverse beyond Earth’s atmosphere and 

through space. Additionally, orbital flight includes suborbital 

trajectories that travel into space but deliberately reenter the atmosphere before a complete circumnavigation, geocentric trajectories

that remain in space for one or more revolutions around the Earth, 

and escape trajectories that travel beyond the geocentric regime into 

the gravitational topology of another celestial body.

While any object in orbit is generically referred to as a satellite, 

the term spacecraft refers to an object which has been engineered to 

be controlled and deliberately employed in order to perform a useful 

purpose while traveling in, from, and to the space domain. Small 

natural objects are referred to as satellites while large natural objects 

that constitute a significant source of gravity are referred to as 

celestial bodies. Debris refers to any spacecraft or artificial satellite 

(e.g., a rocket body) in orbit that no longer serves a useful purpose.

ATTRIBUTES OF ORBITAL FLIGHT

The space domain is a unique physical environment. Orbital 

flight derives its key attributes, and hence value, from these 

characteristics. The most prominent characteristic is the domain’s 

physical medium. Within terrestrial domains, atmospheric density and 

pressure resist all forms of motion by generating viscous friction. This 

force is referred to as drag and requires the continuous expenditure 

of energy to overcome. The space environment is a near — though 

not perfect — vacuum. This greatly reduces friction, allowing objects 

to move subject to the pull of gravity. Atmospheric density decreases 

with altitude, thus objects in orbit closer to the Earth must overcome 

more drag than those farther out. Furthermore, lacking any significant 

atmosphere to retain heat, the space domain is subject to extreme temperatures. Finally, undiffused solar energy made up of charged particles 

and high-energy radiation permeates the domain. The varying properties of these phenomena are collectively referred to as solar weather.

Diminished or negligible drag creates conditions that can only be 

fully exploited in space. Because objects in space encounter negligible 

drag, spacecraft can maintain extreme velocity without propulsion, 

enabling them to complete an Earth orbit in as little as 90 minutes 

depending on orbital altitude. Additionally, signals in the electromagnetic spectrum transmit through the near vacuum of space with little 

distortion or attenuation, but will decrease in strength over distance 

due to the inverse square law.

Perspective is another defining attribute of orbital flight. Spacecraft 

achieve altitudes that provide a perspective beyond the obstruction of 

Earth and other celestial bodies. The earthward view provides a global 

perspective and allows an observer to see large swaths of terrestrial surface from a single position, and according to international law, to do 

so legally, unlike terrestrial observation which do not possess the broad 

perspective attributes of spacecraft and cannot enter another state’s 

land, sea, or air territory without permission. The outward perspective 

provides an opportunity to observe celestial objects and orbital activity 

without the distorting effects of Earth’s atmosphere. The benefit of 

perspective makes orbital flight a valuable and distinct vantage point 

for observing activity on Earth and across the rest of the space domain. 

CHAPTER 1 | SPACE DOMAIN

3 4
Orbital Regimes

An orbital regime is a region in space associated with a dominant gravitational system capable of capturing the orbit of other 

objects. Large celestial bodies generate an invisible topology within 

their gravitational sphere of influence. This gravitational topology is 

the fundamental physical demarcation between orbital regimes. 

Today, the practical limits of the space domain’s physical 

dimension are segmented into three nested orbital regimes. In the 

geocentric regime, Earth’s gravity dominates and objects follow orbital trajectories relative to the Earth. The geocentric regime is nested 

within the cislunar regime – the combined Earth-Moon two body 

gravitational system. Finally, both regimes are nested in the solar 

regime created by the Sun’s massive gravitational field. While these 

three regimes are the primary regimes of human activity today, the 

solar system is filled with other orbital regimes, each with a distinct 

topology.

natural motion the defining characteristic of the space domain’s physical dimension. No object in orbit occupies a fixed position. Even a 

geostationary spacecraft “fixed” over an equatorial longitude travels 

over 164,000 miles in a 24-hour period.

Once placed in orbit, most spacecraft never return to Earth. Military spacecraft are forward employed for the duration of their lifespan. 

This makes onboard expendables and consumables (e.g. fuel) and 

spacecraft reliability the primary determinants of mission duration. 

Terrestrial perspectives on warfare use attributes like transit time, range, 

and endurance to describe the reach of military operations. The orbital 

perspective of military power describes the reach of military operations 

based on access windows, revisit rate, mission lifespan, survivability 

relative to threat systems, and the tradeoffs between time, position, 

and total energy. 

SPACE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

The standard space system architecture plays an important role 

in space operations. In order to exploit orbital flight, all space 

systems comprise three distinct segments. The orbital segment consists 

of a spacecraft in orbit beyond Earth’s atmosphere. Depending on the 

application, spacecraft can be remotely piloted, crewed, or autonomous. The terrestrial segment encompasses all the equipment within 

the terrestrial domains required to operate or exploit a spacecraft. This 

includes control stations, antennas, tracking stations, launch sites, 

launch platforms, and user equipment. The link segment comprises the 

signals in the electromagnetic spectrum that connect the terrestrial 

segment and the orbital segment. Uplink signals transmit data from 

Earth to spacecraft. Downlink signals transmit data from a spacecraft 

to Earth. Crosslink signals transmit data from one spacecraft to 

another. 

Collectively, this model defines a “system-of-systems” that must 

operate across the physical, cognitive, and network dimensions. A 

spacecraft is an engineering marvel; however, it provides little value if 

it cannot be controlled or exploited. The engineered properties of all 

three segments play an important role determining the capabilities, 

limitations, and vulnerabilities of space missions. 

PHYSICAL DIMENSION

The physical dimension of the space domain encompasses the orbital environment and the spacecraft operating within 

the domain. This dimension starts in the upper reaches of Earth’s 

atmosphere, intersecting and extending beyond the physical location 

required for sustained orbital flight. Gravity shapes the invisible terrain 

of the space domain. The perpetual force of gravity makes constant 

CHAPTER 1 | SPACE DOMAIN

SPACE OPERATIONS

Space is a unique physical domain, contiguous only with the 

air domain, but interconnected with all domains. This shapes 

how humanity accesses and operates in space. Our ability to conduct 

operations that access, exploit, and defend space rests on simultaneous 

action across all domains, but also requires serious consideration of the 

space domain’s unique physical, network, and cognitive dimensions.

5 6
COGNITIVE DIMENSION

The space domain’s cognitive dimension encompasses the perceptions and mental processes of those who transmit, receive, 

synthesize, analyze, report, decide, and act on information coming 

from and to the space domain. Every domain of human affairs includes 

a cognitive component. The prevalence of remote operations amplifies the importance of the space domain’s cognitive dimension. While 

space is a physical location, operations are executed and interpreted 

through virtual stimuli. Ultimately, space systems are tools that extend 

the ability of an individual or group to perform tasks in, from, and to 

the space domain. Space systems are not static systems; they are designed, employed, and exploited by thinking agents. All these associated processes include cognitive components that shape and define 

human activity in the space domain. 

CHALLENGES OF ORBITAL FLIGHT

Overcoming the obstacles of the space domain is the fundamental challenge of orbital flight. Barriers to orbital flight 

and the hazards of space shape the very nature of space operations. 

BARRIERS TO ACCESS, MOVEMENT, 

AND RECOVERY

Constrained freedom of maneuver is a defining attribute of space operations. Due to orbital mechanics, objects in orbit 

persist in a state of perpetual motion. Just as impactful is the significant energy required to reach orbital altitudes and to maneuver into 

a different orbit. Due to extreme velocities, the amount of energy 

required to reach a different orbit may be significant enough to render 

the option unfeasible or impractical. 

NETWORK DIMENSION

The network dimension of space operations allows users to command, control, and exploit space capabilities through a 

physical and logical architecture that collects, transmits, and processes 

data around the world and across the domain. Because of these dependencies, cyberspace operations within this network dimension are 

a crucial and inescapable component of military space operations and 

represent the primary linkage to the other warfighting domains. These 

dependencies can also create avenues of enemy attack that offer lower 

costs and higher chance of success than orbital warfare within the 

space domain only.

Nodes and links are the fundamental components of the network 

dimension. Nodes are elements of the space architecture capable of 

creating, processing, receiving, or transmitting data. Mission ground 

systems, control antennas, user equipment, space observation sites, 

and spacecraft payloads are examples of key space domain nodes. Links

transport data between nodes. In addition to terrestrial networks, the 

electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) is a vital link for all space architectures. Orbital spacecraft downlink their data, receive commands, and 

transmit telemetry through the EMS. Additionally, active and passive 

EMS applications allow sensors to monitor, detect, track, and characterize resident space objects. Because of the prevalence of remote 

operations, the EMS is the primary conduit through which the control 

and exploitation of the space domain is achieved. 

CHAPTER 1 | SPACE DOMAIN

Space was once a sanctuary from attack, but the emergence, 

advanced development, and proliferation of a wide range of demonstrated counterspace weapons by potential adversaries has reversed this 

paradigm. Today, space, like all other domains, is realized to be contested due to the increasing threat to orbiting assets by adversary weapons systems. There is no forward edge of the battle area behind which 

military spacecraft can reconstitute and recover. Spacecraft remain in 

orbit through peace and war where they are potentially at risk from 

adversary counterspace capabilities and the hostile space environment.

7 8
CHAPTER 1 | SPACE DOMAIN

HAZARDS OF ORBITAL FLIGHT

Acommon misconception is that space exists as an empty 

vacuum. Such a depiction neglects the dynamic and hostile 

environment of orbital flight. The environment contains numerous physical hazards and presents a dynamic and hostile operational 

environment. Earth’s atmosphere extends well above the lower threshold for sustained orbital flight, expanding and contracting based on 

changes in solar activity. In this volume of space, atmospheric drag 

significantly affects orbital flight. Spacecraft operating beyond the 

protection of Earth’s magnetosphere are not impacted by atmospheric 

drag but are exposed to solar wind. Originating from the sun, solar 

wind presents a constant barrage of radiation and charged particles 

capable of severely damaging a spacecraft’s physical and electrical 

components. While solar wind pervades much of the domain, Earth’s 

magnetosphere traps these charged particles, forming the Van Allen radiation belts. Spacecraft transitioning these regions are further exposed 

to concentrated levels of charged particles and high-energy radiation. 

Space debris poses a further risk to the development of human 

activity in space. Any artificial space object that no longer serves a 

useful purpose is space debris and constitutes a collision danger to 

other objects in orbit. Objects that are not intentionally deorbited 

will persist until the gradual effects of orbital decay terminate their 

orbital trajectory. Without active altitude maintenance, the amount of 

time required for a circular Earth orbit to decay into the atmosphere 

can range from days (less than 250 miles), years (less than 300 miles), 

decades (less than 400 miles), or centuries (greater than 400 miles).7 

As the concentration of space debris grows, debris-generating collisions 

become more prevalent, further jeopardizing orbital flight safety and 

compromising the utility of the domain. 

Additionally, in the contested, congested, and competitive space 

warfighting domain, our potential adversaries continue to develop, 

test, and proliferate sophisticated weapons. These weapons have the 

potential to be the most severe risks to orbital flight. To minimize this 

risk, it is imperative we execute threat-focused space operations that 

are fully integrated with timely and relevant intelligence, surveillance, 

and reconnaissance operations.

Since the dawn of the Space Age, attempts to define the space 

domain have focused on the boundary between air and space. This 

demarcation has been the source of considerable debate. But just as 

the ocean’s rising and falling tides insufficiently express the depth and 

complexity of the maritime domain, defining space based on a lower 

physical boundary neglects the domain’s vast expanse and dynamic character. Space is more than an altitude. Space is more than just 

orbital flight; the concept of space operations must span a physical 

dimension, network dimension, and a cognitive dimension, among 

others, in order to completely understand the relationships and interlinkages with the other domains. This functional definition is a 

necessary component of any attempt to capture the complete utility 

and potential value of the space domain. 

9 10
The beginning stages of man’s conquest of space have been focused on 

technology and have been characterized by national competition. The 

result has been a tendency to equate achievement in outer space with 

leadership in science, military capability, industrial technology, and 

with leadership in general.8 

National Security Council Report 5814/1

18 August 1958

CHAPTER 2 | NATIONAL SPACEPOWER

 CHAPTER 2

NATIONAL 

SPACEPOWER

POLITICS, POLICY, AND THE

 INSTRUMENTS OF POWER

Spacepower is a source and conduit of national power; thus, an understanding of spacepower must start with an appreciation 

of international power politics. The term politics refers to the deliberate and interactive pursuit of power in the international system while 

policy refers to the political aims and objectives of a nation or non-state 

actor. Politics is a dynamic social system and can be cooperative or 

competitive. Power, by definition, enables influence and control over 

events, outcomes, and other actors. States pursue power in order to 

strengthen their ability to achieve strategic objectives. 

States leverage instruments of national power in order to exert influence and control in the international system. There are four primary 

instruments of national power: diplomatic power, information power, 

military power, and economic power.9 Collectively, the instruments of 

power represent the tools states employ to achieve national objectives. 

The proper conduct and application of spacepower must serve policy 

aims and seek to strengthen all four instruments of national power. 

Access to space is essential to U.S. prosperity and security — it is a national imperative. The many benefits our Nation derives 

from space include mass communications, financial and economic 

information networks, public safety, weather monitoring, and military 

technology. Like any source of national power, the United States must 

cultivate, develop, and protect these benefits in order to secure continued prosperity.

11 12
NATIONAL SPACEPOWER

National spacepower is the totality of a nation’s ability to exploit 

the space domain in pursuit of prosperity and security. National spacepower is comparatively assessed as the relative strength of 

a state’s ability to leverage the space domain for diplomatic, informational, military, and economic purposes. The space domain is a source 

of and conduit through which our Nation generates and applies all 

four instruments of national power. In this regard, space is no different 

from the land, maritime, air, and cyberspace domains. Space exploration strengthens diplomatic power by conferring national prestige 

and generating opportunities for peaceful multinational cooperation. 

U.S. space-based remote sensing and communication is an elemental 

component of the information power required to employ the other 

instruments of power. On the modern battlefield, military spacepower 

has become a prerequisite for global deterrence and power projection. 

The commercial space industry is a rapidly-growing segment of the 

U.S. economy with limitless potential. The magnitude of these dependencies makes space a vital and inescapable element of U.S. national 

power. The application of spacepower must serve policy aims and seek 

to strengthen all four instruments of national power. 

Unified space action accomplishes more than de-confliction. The 

components of national spacepower are mutually reinforcing. For 

example, military spacepower enables a nation to protect and defend 

space-based sources of economic power while advances in commercial 

space technology make military space operations more effective and lethal. At the same time, military and economic power generate a robust 

backdrop for diplomacy, which leverages space activities to communicate with and influence other actors. Space-based information collection strengthens diplomatic instruments by providing reliable methods 

to verify international agreements and treaties. Because the components of national spacepower are mutually reinforcing, they must be 

developed and coordinated for a nation to realize the full strategic 

benefits of national spacepower.

Military space forces play an important role in achieving unified 

space action. Military space research, development, and materiel 

acquisition must be closely coordinated with civil, commercial, and 

national intelligence space programs.

Military operations in space exist to preserve and advance all equities of national spacepower. Furthermore, the vast size of the military 

space apparatus necessitates that military space forces play a leading 

role establishing and reinforcing any standards and norms of behavior 

in the space domain. 

CHAPTER 2 | NATIONAL SPACEPOWER

UNIFIED SPACE ACTION

Coherent national spacepower is achieved through unified space action. Unified space action synchronizes all components of 

national spacepower, achieving unity of effort in support of national 

interests. Barriers to access, maneuver, and recovery make it impractical to completely partition the domain among civil, commercial, 

national, DoD, intelligence, and military actors — the components 

of national spacepower must coexist. Unified space action harmonizes 

these components, guaranteeing they reinforce rather than undermine 

each other. 

Today, the entirety of economic and military space activities is 

confined to the geocentric regime; however, commercial investments 

and new technologies have the potential to expand the reach of vital 

National space interests to the cislunar regime and beyond in the near 

future. As technology marches forward, U.S. military spacepower must 

harmonize with the other instruments of power to protect, defend, and 

maintain the Nation’s strategic interests in space. 

13 14
The purpose of military power is to be prepared, and when called upon 

by the legitimate governing authority, to maximize violence within the 

constraints and limitations placed upon it.10

Dr. Everett Carl Dolman

Strategy: Context and Adaption 

from Archidamus to Airpower

CHAPTER 3

MILITARY 

SPACEPOWER

The value of high ground is one of the oldest and most enduring tenets of warfare. Holding the high ground offers an 

elevated and unobscured field of view over the battlefield, providing 

early warning of enemy activity and protecting fielded forces from a 

surprise attack. Furthermore, forces on elevated terrain hold a distinct 

energy advantage, increasing the efficiency and longevity of military 

operations. Finally, control of the high ground can serve as an effective 

obstacle to an opponent’s military, diluting combat power by forcing 

the enemy to dedicate time and resources away from the main effort in 

order to dislodge an entrenched force. 

The space domain encompasses all of these attributes, making 

military spacepower a critical manifestation of the high ground in 

modern warfare. When employed against adversaries, military spacepower has deterrent and coercive capacities—it provides independent options 

for National and Joint leadership but achieves its greatest potential when 

integrated with other forms of military power.

WAR

Military spacepower is inextricably linked to war. Military space forces must operate in this new warfighting domain to 

contribute to winning our Nation’s wars. Thus, war’s enduring nature 

and modern character shape and define military spacepower. 

CHAPTER 3 | MILITARY SPACEPOWER

15 16
WAR’S ENDURING NATURE

War is socially sanctioned violence to achieve a political 

purpose.11 As Clausewitz said, “War is the continuation of 

politics by other means.” As such, no domain in history in which humans contest policy goals has ever been free from the potential for war. 

In keeping with international law, the United States acknowledges that 

the use of space is for peaceful purposes, while preparing for the reality 

that space must be defended from those who will seek to undermine 

our goals in space. 

As a clash of opposed wills, war manifests as dynamic competition. Belligerents act and react to their opponents, each attempting 

to thwart the other and gain a position of advantage from which to 

impose their will. Above all, humans, not weapons, fight wars. This 

human element injects uncertainty, disorder, surprise, emotion, adaptation, and cunning into the conduct of war. 

The term warfare describes the methods of waging war.12 The 

context of war varies and can range from declared hostilities between 

sovereign adversaries to limited violence between non-state proxy 

forces. The competition continuum includes a mixture of cooperation, 

competition below armed conflict, and armed conflict. In any conflict, 

political aims, policy restraints, and the law of armed conflict shape 

the intensity of warfare. 

The same technology that transformed space into an element of 

national power has also fundamentally altered war’s modern character. 

The seven Joint functions — command and control, information, intelligence, fires, movement and maneuver, sustainment, and protection 

— provide a systematic framework for understanding the role space 

plays in this modern manifestation of warfare. The speed, range, and 

connectivity of modern weapon systems enable belligerents to wage 

war on a global scale and across multiple domains. In such a conflict, 

command and control, intelligence, the synchronization of movement 

and maneuver, and force sustainment must occur on a global scale and 

rapidly enough to defeat weapons with extreme speed and range. 

CHAPTER 3 | MILITARY SPACEPOWER

WAR’S MODERN CHARACTER

While war’s enduring nature persists, the character of war 

must constantly evolve. Science, technology, and the 

endless pursuit of military advantage conspire to shape how wars are 

fought. For most of human history, direct violence was a universal 

attribute of war’s character. Threatening or applying military force 

against an adversary required direct contact. Physical danger and immediate personal violence remain central attributes for many modern 

forms of warfare; however, due to the advance of military technology, 

these conditions are no longer universal elements of war’s modern 

character. 

Joint Functions

Joint functions provide a common framework for integrating, 

synchronizing, and directing operations across multiple domains. 

Joint Publication 3-0, Joint Operations, provides a detailed description of the seven Joint functions and their role in Joint operations. 

Command and control is the exercise of a commanders’ authority to 

direct forces in order to accomplish assigned missions. The 

information function is concerned with the collection, dissemination, management, and application of information in order to 

drive desired battlefield behaviors, disrupt adversary decision 

making, and support friendly decision making. Intelligence

supports a com-mander’s predictive understanding of the 

operational environment. The fires function is concerned with the 

employment of weapons against targets in order to create effects. 

Movement and maneuver seeks to place forces in a position of 

advantage relative to the ad-versary. Sustainment activities provides 

the logistical support mili-tary forces require to maintain their 

combat capability throughout deployment, employment, and 

redeployment. Protection preserves the effectiveness and 

survivability of mission-related military and nonmilitary personnel, 

equipment, facilities, information, and infrastructure. 

17 18
COERCION AND VICTORY IN WAR

All warfare seeks to coerce an adversary. Formally, coercion is the 

threat or application of force in order to induce an adversary 

to behave differently than it otherwise would.13 Coercion in warfare 

takes many forms and can be divided into deterrence and compellence. Deterrence is the prevention of action by the existence of a 

credible threat of unacceptable counteraction and/or the belief that the 

cost of action outweighs the perceived benefit14 — it essentially seeks 

to maintain a status quo. Through extended deterrence and assurance, 

one actor embraces a partner’s interests as their own, thus signaling 

to any potential adversary or rival a resolve to protect these interests. 

Compellence, within recognized legal limits, attempts to forcibly alter 

or shape ongoing adversary behaviors and objectives until compliance 

is reached. 

The space domain has global reach and therefore offers a global 

perspective that is persistent, enduring, and responsive. These characteristics enable forces to deliver effects in the space domain and 

others from greater ranges, far removed from the U.S., with a minimal 

operational footprint. This ability is a powerful deterrent to potential 

adversaries as their awareness of the United States Space Force’s global 

reach influences their behavior and decision calculus on an 

ever-present basis.

In the competitive context of war, victory results when one side 

successfully imposes their policy aims on a rival through coercion. All 

forms of military power — including military spacepower — pursue 

this objective through the threat or application of force. In so doing, 

the victor compels a change in behavior an opponent would not otherwise choose to pursue. These outcomes can range from limited concessions to the total surrender or overthrow of an enemy government.

There are two fundamental strategies for the successful employment of military force as a political instrument. A strategy of 

incapacitation seeks to make the enemy helpless to resist by physically 

destroying adversary military capability.15 This strategy does not require the total destruction of adversary military forces; rather, incapacitation eliminates military resistance as a viable option for a political 

rival. In contrast to a strategy of incapacitation, a strategy of erosion

aims to convince an opponent that adopting the demanded change in 

political behavior will invoke less pain than continued resistance.16 

A direct approach is rarely the preferred method of achieving 

victory. Predictable action is easily thwarted. Instead, success in war 

often depends on finding an indirect approach that forces an opponent into a disadvantaged or vulnerable position. Once such a position 

is achieved, we can leverage our strength to strike at and exploit our 

adversary’s weaknesses. This continuous struggle to leverage strength 

on an opponent’s weaknesses makes deception a cornerstone of any 

strategy in war. 

CHAPTER 3 | MILITARY SPACEPOWER

Achieving these battlefield conditions creates a dependency on 

the ability to collect, process, fuse, and disseminate information on a 

global scale. One key distinction of warfare in the Information Age is 

that many weapon systems rely on external sources of information to 

function. The prominence of information on the modern battlefield 

has important implications for force protection. In addition to protecting fielded forces, modern warfare demands that the belligerents 

protect the physical and logical lines of communication that enable the 

rapid exchange of information. Finally, the range of fires within war’s 

modern character now includes lethal and non lethal fires, as well as 

kinetic and non-kinetic fires. The violent and destructive contributions 

lethal fires make in warfare endures; however, in the Information Age, 

maximizing the effectiveness and efficiency of these fires requires an 

architecture that can strike targets with precision and accuracy. Furthermore, information dependencies create an opportunity for non-lethal and non-kinetic fires from all domains that impair an adversary’s 

access to information and attempt to shatter their decision processes 

and paralyze their fielded forces. 

19 20
SPACE WARFARE

Adversaries compete in space, from space, and to space in order 

to achieve political aims and impose their will on opponents. 

War emerges when the threat or application of military force introduces violence as a mode of interaction between adversaries. Military 

spacepower can deter behavior and enable access to critical information; however, it can also inflict lethal and non lethal violence against 

an opponent. As a warfighting force, military space forces must steadfastly prepare to prosecute the appropriate amount of violence against 

an opponent subject to strategic objectives, legal, and policy restraints.

Just like warfare in any other domain, space warfare is a violent 

clash of opposing wills.17 Notably, the adversary in space warfare is 

never a spacecraft or some other inanimate system. Space warfare 

targets the mind of an adversary and seeks to neutralize their capability 

and will to resist. Military space forces compete against thinking actors 

who threaten our Nation’s prosperity, security, or political aims. Thus, 

military space forces must prepare to outwit, outmaneuver, and dominate thinking, competent, and lethal aggressors who are attempting to 

thwart U.S. actions. 

recognizes overflight of any point on the Earth by spacecraft. This 

affords unique opportunities for military power. 

Orbital flight extends lines of communication into the most 

desolate and remote areas of human activity. Military forces at every 

echelon of war capitalize on this perspective to share information 

beyond their line-of-sight, synchronizing global power projection 

across all warfighting domains. The practice of legal, unrestricted 

overflight allows spacecraft to penetrate the most restricted segments 

of the battlefield. It is through this denied area access that space-based 

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) provides the foundational intelligence to analyze adversary capabilities, courses of action 

and intent in order to deliver predictive intelligence for Space Domain 

Awareness (SDA), and Joint Force Commanders’ decision-making 

processes. When fully integrated, these capabilities along with terrestrial and airborne ISR capabilities will deliver game-changing intelligence 

to protect and defend the space domain. By controlling this ultimate 

perspective, military forces can monitor and rapidly respond to any 

contingency around the world before establishing a large in-theater 

footprint. Thus, the global, legal, penetrating, and persistent attributes 

of orbital flight make spacepower assertively responsive to emerging 

threats around the world. 

In addition to the earthward perspective, orbital flight provides an 

unmatched outward perspective of the space domain. Spacecraft can 

monitor orbital activity without the obscuring effects of dense atmosphere, terrestrial weather or concealed orbital regimes. Some parts of 

the space domain can only be observed from an orbital perspective, 

such as the far side of the moon. Any requirement to observe and 

monitor obscured portions of the space domain can only be accomplished from an orbital trajectory.

On a fundamental level, operating from the high ground of space 

reduces an adversary’s ability to surprise us. It is difficult for an adversary to take offensive action or hide from a perspective that is simultaneously global, legal, penetrating, and persistent. However, the events 

of 9/11 remind us of the ever-pressing need for vigilance regardless 

of a perceived advantage. Considering this, the space perspective can 

guard against tactical, operational, and strategic surprise.

CHAPTER 3 | MILITARY SPACEPOWER

VALUE OF MILITARY SPACEPOWER

Military spacepower is the ability to accomplish strategic and military objectives through the control and exploitation of 

the space domain. Military space forces are the practitioners of military spacepower who provide a global perspective to the Joint Force. 

Security, deterrence, and violent competition are the hallmarks of 

a warfighting force, and military space forces are no different. They 

shape the security environment, deter aggression, and apply lethal and 

nonlethal force in, from, and to space. 

However, the attributes of the space domain make military spacepower unique from other forms of military power (just as terrestrial 

forms of military power are unique from spacepower). Space is the 

only physical domain capable of achieving a globally persistent and 

legal overflight military perspective of any location on the earth. 

Military spacepower achieves this global persistence by combining 

the high-altitude perspective of space with the enduring longevity of 

forward employed spacecraft and an international legal regime which 

21 22
FULL SPECTRUM MILITARY

SPACEPOWER

KEY TOPOLOGY IN THE PHYSICAL DIMENSION

I

dentifying, seizing, exploiting, and protecting valuable physical locations is a critical component of military power in all 

domains. Dividing the physical environment by common or advantageous orbital trajectories is a useful method for compartmentalizing 

operations in the domain. Thus, a systematic understanding of lines 

of communication (LOCs) and key orbital trajectories (KOTs) allows 

military space forces to grapple with the vastness of the space domain 

when planning, executing, and assessing spacepower operations. 

A LOC is any route that connects employed military forces with a 

base of operations and along which supplies and military forces move. 

Control of critical LOCs enables the timely repositioning, resupply, 

and reinforcement of military forces within the space domain. Examples of valuable LOCs include spaceport launch trajectories, spacecraft 

recovery trajectories, minimum energy transfer paths from one orbit to 

another, and transfer paths from the geocentric regime to the cislunar 

regime and beyond.

A key orbital trajectory (KOT) is any orbit from which a spacecraft 

can support users, collect information, defend other assets, or engage 

the adversary. These critical segments of the domain represent orbits 

for mission execution and power projection. KOTs can be defined 

relative to a celestial body (inertial KOT), relative to an advantageous 

energy state (energy KOT), or relative to other trajectories 

(orbital KOT). Some examples of an inertial KOT, the most basic 

form of “key terrain,” are Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Medium-Earth 

Orbit (MEO), Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) and sunsynchronous orbits.

CHAPTER 3 | MILITARY SPACEPOWER

Acomplete understanding of military spacepower must encompass the domain’s physical, network, and cognitive dimensions, among others. These dimensions are not sequential segments in 

a serial architecture. Instead, this model of space operations recognizes 

the simultaneous and interrelated influence all three dimensions have 

on military spacepower. These dimensions are tightly coupled, and 

space operations must deliberately consider and affect all three in order 

to realize the benefits of spacepower. 

Space Operations Across Three Simultaneous Dimensions

As an example of full spectrum military spacepower, consider 

a missile warning spacecraft in geosynchronous Earth orbit. A specifically selected trajectory in the physical dimension of the space 

domain allows a remote sensor to constantly monitor a portion of 

the Earth’s surface for missile activity. Thus, the payload on this 

spacecraft serves as a critical information node and is part of its 

network dimension. When a missile event occurs, the spacecraft 

will collect data on the event and downlink that data to a mission 

ground station for processing. Processed information will then be 

disseminated to end users to inform cognitive decision processes. 

Furthermore, because of this persistent and overt missile warning, 

adversaries can credibly expect that a strategic attack will be detected, attributed, and reciprocated, thus strengthening the cognitive 

aspects of deterrence. 

This simple example demonstrates the practical design of military spacepower that deliberately integrates actions across all three 

dimensions of space operations. A holistic and integrated view of 

the space domain and space operations must dictate how military 

services organize, train, equip, and present space forces to be employed by the Joint Force.

PROTECTING ACCESS IN THE 

NETWORK DIMENSION

The network dimension is not static. Rather, it represents a physical and logical maneuver space. Some examples of tactical maneuvers in this dimension include monitoring and defending 

software, attacking adversary computer systems, duplicating networks, 

amplifying signals, shifting frequencies, upgrading encryption, and 

adjusting data pathways. In a military context, links and nodes that 

comprise the network dimension of the space domain are potential 

23 24
THE ELECTROMAGNETIC MANEUVER SPACE

The transfer of electromagnetic energy across a spectrum of different energy states — collectively referred to as the 

electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) — impacts all three dimensions of the 

space domain, defining the very character of space operations. First, 

most spacecraft harness naturally occurring electromagnetic energy in 

order to generate power. Additionally, all spacepower applications rely 

on remote operations. This makes the EMS an important physical 

CHAPTER 3 | MILITARY SPACEPOWER

AFFECTING THE COGNITIVE DIMENSION

Military spacepower shapes and manipulates how adversaries process information, form perceptions, derive key judgements, and make decisions – all aspects of the cognitive dimension. 

The space domain’s remoteness challenges operators to understand 

physical operations without direct sensory input. Thus, affecting the 

cognitive dimension involves preserving the ability to observe and 

orient within the environment in order to effectively decide and act

from a remote location. Explicitly acknowledging the cognitive dimension of the space domain emphasizes military spacepower as a coercive 

force despite the limited number of humans who occupy the domain’s 

physical dimension.

The cognitive dimension includes friendly actors, adversaries, 

and third parties operating at all levels of warfare. For example, space 

actions can deter adversary aggression based on the credible perception 

of an unacceptable counteraction, or assure Allied and commercial 

partners of a secure space domain. 

In space warfare, many of the most critical objectives are achieved 

in the cognitive dimension. Decision superiority, deterrence, dissuasion, compellence, and assurance manifest here. Neutralizing an 

adversary spacecraft offers limited military value if such actions fail to 

influence the perceptions or decisions of the enemy. 

maneuver space within which many important network links reside, 

connecting spacecraft to terrestrial operators, users, and customers. 

Wireless connectivity through the EMS enables the rapid dissemination of data that in turn impacts the cognitive processes of those 

who rely on space-derived information to make decisions, generate 

economic value, or realize a military advantage. Without these applications of the EMS, modern space operations would not be possible. 

While the EMS influences all three dimensions of space operations, it also serves as a potential conduit through which space missions can be disrupted or held at risk. Naturally occurring electromagnetic radiation can pose a tremendous risk to spacecraft electronics. 

Weaponized directed energy can damage a spacecraft or its payloads. 

Electromagnetic energy can disrupt or deny EMS links, isolating a 

spacecraft from operators and users. If left unprotected, false data or 

information can be injected through the EMS into space networks, 

allowing adversaries to manipulate the cognitive processes of decision makers and space system operators. These vulnerabilities present 

a tremendous risk to the viability of military spacepower; therefore, 

military space forces must prepare to exploit and defend the EMS as a 

weaponized maneuver space. 

vulnerabilities and subject to attack. Physical or logical attacks against 

any segment of the network dimension have the potential to isolate a 

space system from its end user. Thus, mission assurance requires protecting all segments of the network dimension with a whole of government approach. 

Military spacepower cannot unilaterally win wars, but like landpower, seapower, airpower, or cyberpower, its success, absence, or 

failure could prove catastrophically decisive in war. Because military 

spacepower has the potential to be the difference between victory and 

defeat, it must be viewed with equal importance as military power 

in any other domain. This observation is the strategic imperative for 

creating the United States Space Force as an independent military Service capable of maximizing military spacepower as a distinct and vital 

formulation of military power. 

25 26
CHAPTER 4

EMPLOYMENT OF 

SPACE FORCES

In the long haul, our safety as a nation may depend upon our achieving “space superiority.” Several decades from now, the important battles 

may not be sea battles or air battles, but space battles, and we should 

be spending a certain fraction of our national resources to ensure that 

we do not lag in obtaining space supremacy.18

Major General Bernard Schriever, 1957

Commander, Western Development Division,

Air Research and Development Command

Major General Bernard Schriever delivered his prescient description of space superiority eight months before humanity 

first launched an artificial spacecraft into orbit. Today, military space 

forces conduct prompt and sustained space operations, accomplishing 

three cornerstone responsibilities. First, military space forces Preserve 

Freedom of Action in the space domain. Second, military space forces 

strengthen and transform the Lethality and Effectiveness of the Joint 

Force. Third, military space forces provide U.S. national leadership 

with Independent Options capable of achieving strategic effects. Taken 

together, these three Cornerstone Responsibilities define the vital contributions of military spacepower and the core purpose of the United 

States Space Force.

PRESERVE FREEDOM OF ACTION 

The United States’ ability to project and employ national power is predicated on access to space. Therefore, unfettered access 

to and freedom to operate in space is a vital national interest.19 

Assuring freedom of operation in space is a fundamental role of the 

U.S. military, and specifically the United States Space Force. Preserving Freedom of Action describes a strategic condition where a nation 

or sovereign actor has the relative level of control or ability required 

to accomplish all four components — diplomatic, informational, 

military and economic — of their implicit or explicit space strategy. 

Preserving Freedom of Action becomes an operational imperative in 

peace and war, and space security becomes a critical mission across the 

conflict continuum.

27 28
Freedom of Action requirements are assessed relative to national 

strategy. At the political level, military freedom of action may be of 

limited value should the United States lose the ability to employ the 

other three instruments of power through the space domain. This insight demands that the military concept of preserving freedom of action in 

space also supports the other components of national spacepower. Because 

of this holistic approach, military space forces must maintain a strategic 

perspective and appreciate domain requirements that extend beyond the 

use of military force.

The terms space parity, space superiority, and space supremacy 

describe relative degrees of advantage between two or more adversaries. 

Space parity describes any condition where no force derives a relative 

advantage over another at a given time. Space superiority is a relative 

degree of control in space of one force over another that would permit 

the conduct of its operations without prohibitive interference from the 

adversary while simultaneously denying their opponent freedom of 

action in the domain at a given time. Space supremacy implies that one 

side could conduct operations with relative impunity while denying 

space domain freedom of action to an adversary. Space supremacy is 

not always desirable, or attainable against a peer adversary, and should 

not be the unconditional goal of military spacepower. A rival may 

wish for their adversary to maintain some space capabilities to reduce 

the probability of a strategic miscalculation or larger escalation in the 

conflict and to allow certain elements of national infrastructure to 

continue without disruption, such as medical services and communication between friendly and adversary decision-makers to broker a 

de-escalation. 

The above conditions can be temporary or permanent. Deliberate action can create windows of space superiority or supremacy in 

support of specific objectives for a specified period of time. Assessing 

relative control is predicated on SDA. Military space forces must 

understand the entwined web of U.S. space dependencies in order to 

determine how to effectively protect and preserve space domain freedom of action. Assessment involves determining how unsatisfied space 

dependencies impact implicit or explicit strategy. Thus, military space 

forces must understand both friendly and adversary space dependencies to make operational assessments. 

CHAPTER 4 | EMPLOYMENT OF SPACE FORCES

Cornerstone Responsibilities of Military Space Forces

Preserve Freedom of Action – Unfettered access to and freedom 

to operate in space is a vital national interest; it is the ability to 

accomplish all four components of national power – diplomatic, 

information, military, and economic – of a nation’s implicit or 

explicit space strategy. Military space forces fundamentally exist to 

protect, defend, and preserve this freedom of action.

Enable Joint Lethality and Effectiveness – Space capabilities 

strengthen operations in the other domains of warfare and reinforce 

every Joint function – the US does not project or employ power 

without space. At the same time, military space forces must rely 

on military operations in the other domains to protect and defend 

space freedom of action. Military space forces operate as part of the 

closely integrated Joint Force across the entire conflict continuum 

in support of the full range of military operations.

Provide Independent Options – A central tenet of military 

spacepower is the ability to independently achieve strategic effects. 

In this capacity, military spacepower is more than an adjunct to 

landpower, seapower, airpower, and cyberpower. Across the conflict 

continuum, military spacepower provides national leadership with 

independent military options that advance the nation’s prosperity 

and security. Military space forces achieve national objectives by 

projecting power in, from, to space.

29 30
ENABLE JOINT LETHALITY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS

The ability to control and exploit the space domain is an essential component of modern warfare. Military spacepower 

allows for the rapid dissemination of information on a global scale. 

Information can be collected and delivered to austere environments 

without terrestrial infrastructure. Capabilities such as precision attack, 

maneuver warfare, strategic warning, and global power projection are 

fundamental to modern warfare. These capabilities must be protected, 

and military space forces must rely on military operations in the other 

domains to do so. 

Given the vital and interdependent nature of military spacepower 

within the Joint Force, military space forces must comprehensively and 

effectively integrate space capabilities into Joint training, planning, 

and operations. Maximizing Joint lethality and effectiveness requires a 

cadre of military space forces that are deliberately prepared to integrate 

spacepower across the range of national and Joint operations. Said 

differently, the United States Space Force must be Joint-smart from its 

inception and it must help produce a space-smart Joint Force.

Operations in the space domain provide a diverse set of options for 

national leadership. Actions as benign as the launch or repositioning 

of a space capability can assure international partners or signal U.S. 

resolve to strategic competitors. Any nation or non-state actor who 

depends on space as a source of diplomatic, informational, military, or 

economic power is vulnerable to military spacepower’s coercive 

potential.

The coercive value of military spacepower is not limited to great 

power competition. Military spacepower may still have a coercive 

impact on nations or actors who lack significant space dependencies 

by projecting power from the space domain. The ability to legally 

transcend the most remote and protected national boundaries provides 

a unique opportunity to enable lethal and non-lethal effects against 

terrestrial targets. Additionally, the specter of global vigilance incentivizes adversaries to adapt their behavior and expend time, energy, 

and resources to mask or obscure sensitive events. By strengthening 

our ability to detect and attribute malign action, or using space-based 

National Technical Means for arms control verification, military spacepower makes deterrence more credible. Military spacepower’s ability to 

enhance the lethality and effectiveness of the Joint Force provides an 

asymmetric advantage that contributes to conventional deterrence. 

Finally, military space forces can shape the security environment 

through space domain collaboration and security cooperation. Building a partner’s spacepower capacity provides non-violent opportunities for strategic effects. These relationships promote U.S. interests 

by encouraging our partners to act in support of U.S. objectives. By 

strengthening our alliances and military partnerships, security cooperation makes deterrence more credible and effective. Through these 

actions, military space forces can reinforce the confidence our partners 

place in their relationship with the United States. 

CHAPTER 4 | EMPLOYMENT OF SPACE FORCES

PROVIDE INDEPENDENT 

OPTIONS - IN, FROM, AND TO

Because nations can generate and apply national power from 

space, actions in the domain can directly affect a nation’s 

decision calculus. Therefore, a central tenet of military spacepower is 

the ability to independently achieve strategic effects. In this capacity, 

military spacepower is more than an adjunct to landpower, seapower, 

airpower, and cyberpower. Across the conflict continuum, military 

spacepower provides national leadership with independent military 

options that advance the nation’s prosperity and security. Military 

space forces achieve national and military objectives by operating in, 

from and to the space domain. 

31 32
EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS

Military spacepower is employed across a range of operational conditions. From enduring requirements to emerging 

challenges, from permissive environments to hostile situations, and 

from overt operations to covert or clandestine activities, the employment of military space forces must remain responsive to the needs of 

the Nation. Given the diversity of these conditions, military spacepower requires a broad portfolio of capabilities and systems. Enduring 

operational requirements demand exquisite capabilities optimized for 

performance and longevity. Special employment activities may require 

purpose-built equipment capable of unique modes of employment. 

In some circumstances, the only way to respond to an emerging 

requirement on operationally relevant timelines may be through a 

rapidly-fielded prototype, an experimental capability, or a repurposed 

research and development (R&D) platform. Through the combined 

employment of exquisite, purpose-built, and repurposed capabilities, 

military space forces capitalize on new technology to provide 

battlespace effects across a range of operational conditions. 

CORE COMPETENCIES OF MILITARY 

SPACEPOWER IN THE UNITED 

STATES SPACE FORCE

The United States Space Force executes five Core Competencies: Space Security; Combat Power Projection; Space Mobility and Logistics; Information Mobility; and Space Domain Awareness. 

These Core Competencies represent the broad portfolio of capabilities 

military space forces need to provide successfully or efficiently to the 

Nation. These Core Competencies are taken in aggregate and applied to 

achieve the three cornerstone responsibilities. The United States Space 

Force is organized, trained, and equipped to perform these Core Competencies on behalf of the Joint Force.20

CHAPTER 4 | EMPLOYMENT OF SPACE FORCES

Military Spacepower Core Competencies

Space Security establishes and promotes stable conditions for 

the safe and secure access to space activities for civil, commercial, 

intelligence community, and multinational partners.

Combat Power Projection integrates defensive and offensive 

operations to maintain a desired level of freedom of action relative 

to an adversary. Combat Power Projection in concert with other 

competencies enhances freedom of action by deterring aggression or 

compelling an adversary to change behavior.

Space Mobility and Logistics (SML) enables movement and 

support of military equipment and personnel in the space domain, 

from the space domain back to Earth, and to the space domain.

Information Mobility provides timely, rapid and reliable collection and transportation of data across the range of military operations in support of tactical, operational, and strategic decision 

making.

Space Domain Awareness (SDA) encompasses the effective 

identification, characterization and understanding of any factor 

associated with the space domain that could affect space operations 

and thereby impact the security, safety, economy, or environment of 

our Nation.

33 34
SPACE SECURITY

U.S. prosperity and economic security increasingly rely on 

the peaceful use of space. Space Security protects these 

interests by establishing conditions for the safe and secure access to 

space for civil, commercial, Intelligence Community (IC), and multinational partners. Space Security is a presence mission that helps assure 

partners that the U.S. military is positioned to monitor and protect 

their interests. Ultimately, Space Security seeks to encourage partners, 

not compel an adversary; however, if necessary, Space Security includes 

protecting these mission partners from dangerous or illicit actions. In 

this regard, combat forces provide a deterrent role for Space Security. Space Security may also include sharing information and domain 

awareness, developing self-protection capabilities, coordinating anomaly resolution support, maneuver de-confliction, EMS monitoring, 

launch vehicle ridesharing, protecting lines of communication and 

national space commerce, and building partner capacity through combined training and exercises. 

Cooperation and coordination are the defining attributes of Space 

Security. In order to effectively perform Space Security, military space 

forces must develop strong connections with their civil, commercial, 

IC, and multinational partners. Space Security is mutually beneficial. 

Military space forces ensure a safe and secure environment for our 

partners. In return, our partners bolster U.S. space capacity while 

sharing vital information that increases space domain awareness. These 

strong connections allow all parties to assist each other during crises. 

As the range of civil, commercial, national intelligence, and multinational space applications expands in scope and extends farther from 

Earth, military space forces must prepare to extend Space Security in 

support of these new U.S. interests.

COMBAT POWER PROJECTION

Combat Power Projection ensures freedom of action in space for 

the United States and its Allies and, when necessary to defend against threats, denies an adversary freedom of action in space. 

Combat power – the force available and, when necessary, employed to 

protect, defend, or defeat threats – is the purest form of military power 

and serves a distinct role in the pursuit of strategic objectives. Military 

space forces project combat power for defensive and offensive purposes. Defensive operations enhance control by protecting and preserving 

U.S. freedom of action in the space domain. When warranted, offensive operations are designed to achieve a relative advantage by negating 

an adversary’s ability to access, or exploit the space domain and are 

therefore essential to achieving space superiority.

Defensive operations protect and preserve friendly space capabilities 

before, during, or after an attack. Defensive operations are further 

divided into active and passive actions. Active defensive operations 

encompass actions to destroy, nullify, or reduce the effectiveness of 

threats holding friendly space capabilities at risk. Although this may 

entail reactive operations after an adversary has initiated an attack, 

active defense also includes proactive efforts to seize the initiative 

once an attack is imminent. While active defense directly attempts to 

interdict the employment of capability against friendly space missions, 

passive defense attempts to improve survivability through system and 

architectural attributes. Passive defense measures include spacecraft 

maneuverability; self-protection; disaggregation; orbit diversification; 

large-scale proliferation; communication, transmission, and emissions 

security; camouflage, concealment, and deception; and system hardening across all three segments of the space architecture.21 

Offensive operations target an adversary’s space and counterspace 

capabilities, reducing the effectiveness and lethality of adversary forces 

across all domains.22 Offensive operations seek to gain the initiative 

and may neutralize adversary space missions before they can be employed against friendly forces. Offensive operations are not limited to 

adversary counterspace systems and can also target the full spectrum 

of an adversary’s ability to exploit the space domain, which includes 

targets in the terrestrial and cyber domains. 

CHAPTER 4 | EMPLOYMENT OF SPACE FORCES

35 36
The space system architecture – space segment, terrestrial segment, 

and link segment – makes defensive and offensive operations inherently multi-domain. In order to preserve a space capability, all three 

segments must be protected. Conversely, a successful attack against 

any segment of the space architecture can neutralize a space capability. 

Thus, defensive and offensive operations must be employed through 

an effects-based approach across all three segments. The focus is on a 

specific outcome or impact to adversary operations. 

INFORMATION MOBILITY

I

nformation Mobility is the timely, rapid, and reliable collection 

and transportation of data across the range of military operations in support of tactical, operational, and strategic decision making. Information Mobility includes point-to-point communications; 

broadcast communications; long-haul communication links; protected 

strategic communications; machine-to-machine interfaces; position, 

navigation and timing; nuclear detonation detection; missile warning; 

and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. 

Global power projection introduces information collection and 

transportation requirements which space is uniquely postured to 

deliver. Information Mobility extends lines of communication into 

the most desolate and remote areas of human activity. Military users 

capitalize on this perspective to share information beyond their lineof-sight, synchronizing power projection on a global scale and across 

all warfighting domains.

Information Mobility is a deliberate mission that must be planned, 

integrated, and tailored with other warfighting requirements. Information Mobility is also a contested capability that must be protected 

through active and passive measures. 

CHAPTER 4 | EMPLOYMENT OF SPACE FORCES

SPACE MOBILITY AND LOGISTICS

Space Mobility and Logistics (SML) is the movement and support of military equipment and personnel into the space domain, 

from the space domain back to Earth, and through the space domain. 

The ability to control and exploit the space domain always begins with 

physical access to orbit. SML starts with the ability to launch military 

equipment into the proper orbit in a safe, secure, and reliable manner. During conflict, space launch must be dynamic and responsive, 

providing the ability to augment or reconstitute capability gaps from 

multiple locations. Today, SML is largely uncontested, though the 

history of warfare highlights that this condition will not last. Military 

forces must therefore prepare to defend physical access to the space 

domain – a key focus of defensive operations and the need for military 

space forces to be prepared to project combat power. 

Orbital sustainment and recovery is another important application of SML. Already demonstrated in the commercial sector, orbital 

sustainment will allow military space forces to replenish consumables 

and expendables on spacecraft that cannot be recovered back to Earth. 

Orbital sustainment will also enable spacecraft inspection, anomaly 

resolution, hardware maintenance, and technology upgrades. Orbital 

recovery allows for the recovery of personnel or military equipment 

from the space domain. This includes objects such as reusable spacecraft or launch boosters 

SPACE DOMAIN AWARENESS

Space Domain Awareness (SDA) encompasses the effective identification, characterization, and understanding of any factor 

associated with the space domain that could affect space operations 

and thereby impacting the security, safety, economy, or environment 

of our Nation. SDA leverages the unique subset of intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, environmental monitoring, and data sharing 

arrangements that provide operators and decision makers with a timely 

depiction of all factors and actors — including friendly, adversary, and 

third party — impacting domain operations. Furthermore, SDA must 

be predictive, synthesizing facts and evidence into an assessment of 

possible and probable future outcomes. 

37 38
Fundamentally, SDA is a big data challenge. The United States 

Space Force must have the ability to collect, synthesize, fuse, and make 

sense of extremely large volumes of data from all sources to ensure 

the United States Space Force’s ability to have domain awareness. As a 

digital Service, the United States Space Force must leverage its personnel, Allies, civil and industry partners, and big data toolsets to reveal 

patterns, trends, and associations, especially relating to human behavior and interactions that provide the required SDA.

SDA extends across the physical, network, and cognitive dimensions of space operations. Operating in the physical environment of 

space requires a timely awareness of space weather, lighting conditions, 

and gravitational topology. In addition to these natural phenomenon, 

military space forces must also maintain awareness of spacecraft orbiting in the domain. This includes active spacecraft and debris. Moreover, when tracking active spacecraft, SDA captures more than orbital 

trajectory. Complete SDA also includes mission related details such as 

missions, intentions, system capabilities, patterns-of-life, and the status 

of consumables and expendables. 

Awareness of the network dimension must encompass the links 

and nodes that enable orbital flight and the movement of information 

in, from, and to the domain. This includes the frequency, location, 

access, and power of EMS links along with the physical and logical 

pathways required to transmit information across space architectures. 

SDA provides insight into key redundancies and chokepoints in the 

network dimension. 

Awareness in the space domain’s cognitive dimension encompasses the actors who operate or rely on space systems, along with their 

decision-making processes, biases, cultural values, and psychological 

tendencies. Importantly, military space forces must also maintain an 

awareness of their own decision processes and any associated personal 

or institutional biases. SDA of the cognitive dimension allows commanders to detect deceit, determine adversary intentions, and act 

within an adversary’s decision cycle. 

The practical reality of SDA is that we will not have all possible information all the time. Instead, SDA must be deliberately planned and 

maintained to ensure the right information is delivered to the right 

decision maker at the right time. Thus, SDA can be viewed as a self-reinforcing process: SDA helps predict future outcomes and conditions, 

which in turn drives future requirements for domain awareness.

In addition to the items listed above, there are two overarching 

areas that enable the effectiveness of these five Core Competencies: 

Command and Control, and Stewards of the Domain. 

CHAPTER 4 | EMPLOYMENT OF SPACE FORCES

COMMAND AND CONTROL OF 

SPACE FORCES

Traditional models of warfare segment military objectives into three interrelated levels: strategic, operational, and tactical. 

This model captures the relationship between national objectives and 

tactical action — tactical objectives are nested within operational objectives, which are nested within strategic objectives.23 

Command and Control (C2) is the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander in the accomplishment of 

a mission.24 Effective C2 ensures unity of command within assigned 

and attached forces and enables unity of effort between those forces 

and external organizations. It relies upon the efficient arrangement of 

personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures. 

Ultimately, effective C2 hinges on the communication of intent, 

delegation of decision-making authority to appropriate echelons, and 

timely judgments that are informed by higher-level guidance, available 

battlespace awareness, and operational experience.

The C2 of space operations depends on clearly defined authorities, roles, and relationships. Unambiguous delineation of the chain 

of command, support relationships between organizations, and levels 

of delegated control for assigned forces are prerequisites to decentralized execution of space operations. A well-designed command and 

control scheme specifies the authorities delegated to commanders and 

functional leaders, whilst still permitting flexible control frameworks. 

Depending on the operational situation, such control architectures 

could be organized by orbital regime, along space core competencies, 

or through the integration of those competencies into composite force 

packages. A practiced battle rhythm and rehearsed coordination mechanisms between organizations will help ensure the selected command 

39 40
and control structure fosters unity of effort across disparate military 

organizations and with other stakeholders, especially the national 

Intelligence Community.

The nature of orbital flight can induce strategic compression, 

blurring the distinctions between the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war. A single spacecraft may support multiple theaters, 

be difficult to replace, and represent immense national strategic value. 

This often amplifies tactical action, rapidly propagating the results of a 

confined engagement into operational and strategic level effects.

As with any operating domain or area of responsibility, the command and control of space forces reflects the distinctive character of 

space operations and the unique attributes of the space domain’s physical dimension. Space C2 requires closing a complex decision cycle, 

often on compressed timelines, at great physical standoff, synchronization across disparate coordinating organizations, and with efficient 

management of a limited pool of high-demand, low-density resources. 

These challenging features entail special considerations for the effective 

C2 of space forces.

Space C2 is oriented toward tactical action and designed to outpace the adversary by boldly seizing and maintaining the initiative. 

Overcoming the physical remoteness of space operations requires timely and anticipatory SDA that can only be achieved through a “teamof-teams”25 approach to C2. Military space forces cannot operate as 

discrete, isolated units because no single unit possesses a complete 

operational picture, even for a limited tactical space engagement. 

Thus, C2 of military space forces must fuse the vertical transmission of 

guidance, intent, direction, and status with the lateral transmission of 

timely and anticipatory SDA. 

The C2 of military space forces applies the principles of mission 

command to the unique character of global space operations. As the 

organizing philosophy that underpins C2, mission command is the 

conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based 

on mission-type orders, which enables tactical-level initiative. Mission 

command assumes that the unit prosecuting an engagement maintains 

the greatest localized awareness and is best situated to rapidly identify 

and exploit opportunities. Mission command also assumes that in the 

CHAPTER 4 | EMPLOYMENT OF SPACE FORCES

presence of degraded or denied communications, tactical units must 

still be able to react on relevant timelines without prescriptive orders 

from higher-headquarters. In order to meet the intent of mission 

command, the command and control of military space forces must 

overcome the global and remote nature of space operations in a way 

that systematically provides tactical forces with the SDA required to 

recognize, coordinate, and exploit fleeting battlespace opportunities 

and prevent decision paralysis. 

In accordance with the philosophical principles of mission command, the C2 of military space forces starts with an operational 

commander delegating responsibility and authority for a specific 

mission to a tactical commander through mission-type orders. Within 

mission-type orders, guidance and intent convey task and purpose — 

along with explicit constraints, restraints, and rules of engagement 

— and focus on the objective of the mission rather than the details of 

how to perform associated tasks. Mission-type orders describe what the 

mission’s assigned force must do and the conditions the force must establish in order to accomplish the mission.26 Implicit in mission-type 

orders is empowered mission commanders entrusted with determining 

how best to accomplish the assigned mission based on tactical judgement and battlespace awareness. 

The tactical commander responsible for a mission must have 

the situational awareness and span of control necessary to operate in 

accordance with guidance and intent. Space C2, organized as a “team 

of teams”, leverages a distributive approach to warfighter synchronization to enhance the standard centralized control structure. The C2 of 

military space forces requires a meshed nexus of units sharing awareness vertically and laterally, adapting to information disruptions, and 

harmonizing action at every level of warfare. By leveraging distributed 

domain awareness, military space forces are able to recognize, coordinate, and rapidly exploit transitory opportunities. Such a C2 system is 

robust because it enables large-scale synchronization while overcoming the fragility and cumbersomeness of centralized and hierarchical 

management. 

41 42
Interoperable, reliable, and redundant communication links and 

information support systems are essential. Operators are trained and 

prepared to recognize, describe, and exploit battlespace opportunities 

based on operational guidance and intent. Finally, operators must be 

capable of communicating these opportunities vertically and laterally 

to other units, who they are teamed with in a force package, to execute their assigned missions. These force packages can be composed of 

space high value asset units, defensive units, offensive units, ISR units, 

and/or cyber protection units. Properly implemented, the command 

and control of these military space forces fosters disciplined initiative, 

responsiveness, tactical creativity, and interdependent action without sacrificing the centralized synchronization of capabilities that are 

inherently global. Such a C2 structure empowers tactical commanders with the awareness required to make decisions and assume risk 

even during remote operations. These characteristics allow for tactical 

boldness and a level of agility not historically seen within industrial-era 

control systems.

STEWARDS OF THE DOMAIN

Military space forces must be responsible stewards of the space 

domain. When designing missions, training, and performing end of life operations, military space forces should make every 

effort to promote responsible norms of behavior that perpetuate space 

as a safe and open environment in accordance with the Laws of Armed 

Conflict, the Outer Space Treaty, and international law, as well as 

U.S. Government and DoD policy. Just like all forms of warfare, the 

prosecution of space warfare and the potential generation of collateral 

damage is judged against the principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality. Through this approach, military space forces 

balance our responsibilities for operational readiness with the safety 

and sustainability of the space environment for use by future 

generations.

The employment of military spacepower preserves the prosperity 

and security the United States derives from the space domain. The 

grand formulation of national spacepower — complete with diplomatic, informational, military, and economic components — expands 

the scope and scale of space control beyond military objectives. To this 

end, Preserving Freedom of Action in space is an operational imperative across the conflict continuum. 

Additionally, the employment of military space forces must enable 

the lethality of the Joint Force and provide national leadership with 

independent options for achieving national objectives. However, any 

loss of space domain freedom of action compromises the other two responsibilities. Thus, preserving freedom of action in space is the essence of 

military spacepower and must be the first priority of military space forces.

From a broader perspective, understanding the employment of 

military space forces answers elemental questions about the nature of 

military spacepower. The three cornerstone responsibilities of military 

spacepower — Preserve Freedom of Action, Enable Joint Force Lethality and Effectiveness, and Provide Independent Options for national 

leadership — answer why military spacepower is vital to U.S. prosperity and security. The range of spacepower core competencies — Space 

Security, Combat Power Projection, Space Mobility and Logistics, 

Information Mobility, and Space Domain Awareness — answer how

military spacepower is employed. Taken together, the answers to these 

two questions shape and define the purpose and identity of military 

space forces, laying the foundation for a unifying culture. 

CHAPTER 4 | EMPLOYMENT OF SPACE FORCES

43 44
CHAPTER 5

MILITARY SPACE 

FORCES

War is neither a science nor a craft, but rather an incredibly complex 

endeavor which challenges men and women to the core of their souls. 

It is, to put it bluntly, not only the most physically demanding of all 

the professions, but also the most demanding intellectually and 

morally.27

Williamson Murray, 2011

War, Strategy, and Military Effectiveness

The technology that enables orbital flight can sometimes obscure the most important component of spacepower: our 

people. Innovation propels spacepower forward; for this attribute, there 

can be no substitute. No amount of funding nor reorganization can 

compensate for a lack of innovation. While innovation can ignite the 

development of new technology, superior technology alone does not 

guarantee military dominance. The historical foundation and future 

determinant of U.S. spacepower is the expertise of those visionary 

pioneers dedicated to the many applications of orbital flight. 

DEVELOPING SPACEPOWER 

EXPERTISE

Our greatest assets are the men and women — the space 

professionals — who develop, employ, and advance spacepower for the Nation. Sound doctrine and superior capabilities are of 

little use without personnel who have the expertise and empowerment 

required to wield them. It is of upmost importance that the United 

States Space Force prioritize the development of its people, ensuring 

the force is armed with the leadership, skill sets, and foresight necessary to protect and defend United States interests in any strategic or 

operational environment it faces. 

The stars will never be won by little minds; 

we must be as big as space itself.28 

Robert Heinlein, 1956

Double Star

CHAPTER 5 | MILITARY SPACE FORCES

45 46
The complexity and dynamic nature of space operations demand 

a range of disciplines that must work in tandem to ensure our core 

competencies are sustained and our cornerstone responsibilities are 

met. Spacepower disciplines include operations, intelligence, engineering, acquisitions, and cyber. Space operators employ their weapon 

systems in accordance with principles of war to gain the advantage on 

the battlefield. Engineers design advanced space systems and support 

operational planning and execution by identifying or discovering 

opportunities to optimize system performance. Acquisition personnel 

acquire and field systems on operationally-relevant timelines that meet 

warfighter requirements and lead-turn threats. Intelligence experts 

bind all disciplines by providing foundational, tactical, and operational 

assessments of potential adversaries and the operating environment, 

and by rapidly extracting pertinent information for decision-making 

and action. Finally, cyber professionals perform the enduring task of 

defending and virtually connecting all space activities to ensure space 

forces can access and leverage the domain across the spectrum of conflict. 

Successful integration of these disciplines requires a deliberate 

process that cultivates a common knowledge base, incorporates all skill 

sets across the core competencies, and allows a range of opportunities 

for leadership advancement. Space professionals must develop and 

maintain a global perspective to provide innovative solutions to the 

Joint community with effects at range. These effects may not always 

be from United States Space Force assets and space professionals must 

be sufficiently agile to leverage other interagency, Allied, civil, and/

or commercial resources as required. This process begins with the 

recognition that personnel conducting space operations, engineering, 

acquisitions, intelligence, and cyber comprise the space warfighting 

community and must therefore master the art and science of warfare 

—they are the Nation’s space warfighters. 

SPACEPOWER MENTALITY

National spacepower requires explorers, diplomats, entrepreneurs, scientists, developers, and warfighters. Spacepower 

mentality permeates the broad space community, encompassing those 

who research, acquire, test, launch, employ, conduct space intelligence 

activities, command and control, generate, or sustain military space 

missions. Space professionals defend the Nation’s interests through the 

control and exploitation of the space domain. 

Space professionals recognize the independent impact spacepower 

has on National prosperity. Our global persistence postures the Joint 

Force to continuously assure Allies, deter aggression, coerce competitors, and defeat adversaries. We provide the enduring vigilance that 

protects the United States and our Allies from strategic surprise. Due 

to this global persistence and enduring vigilance, space professionals 

are perfectly postured to provide the Joint Force global, and not just 

regional, perspective and capabilities. As we look to the future, our 

orbital presence must secure the ever expanding frontier of U.S. space 

interests. At their most fundamental level, space professionals seek to 

protect our Nation’s prosperity and security. 

SPACE WARFIGHTERS

Military space forces — protectors of America’s space interest — are first and foremost warfighters who protect, defend, and 

project United States spacepower. Our primary purpose is to secure 

U.S. interests through deterrence and, when necessary, the application 

of force. A warfighting culture is the defining difference between operating space-based information systems and employing credible military 

space power. As an equal part of the Joint Force, these combat-credible 

forces are continuously engaged in the military competition required 

to deter war and counter the malign actions of strategic competitors. 

Should deterrence fail, military space forces are prepared to fight and 

win our Nation’s wars, in space, from space, and to space.

CHAPTER 5 | MILITARY SPACE FORCES

47 48
Military space forces must simultaneously commit themselves to 

two demanding professions — warfighting and the mastery of space. 

This duality blends art and science and forms the core purpose, identity, and culture of the military space community. 

All warfighting cultures are adversary-focused. Problems of external adaptation are defined by a thinking, competent, and lethal 

adversary who threatens U.S. interests while problems of internal integration focus on the perpetual pursuit of combat readiness. Innovation 

seeks a relative advantage over that adversary. Victory and defeat — 

not system availability — are the most important measures of effectiveness. Military space forces fight through uncertainty in a dynamic 

environment by seizing the initiative through decentralized execution 

and the principles of mission command. Within this culture, the 

imperative for victory engenders a tenacious fighting spirit and the 

unbreakable resolve to outmaneuver and dominate an adversary.

Warfighting is a solemn endeavor. We must never let the remote 

aspects of space operations dilute the solemn moral dimension of 

warfare. Warfighters’ actions carry severe consequences. Victory secures 

U.S. interests and prosperity while defeat jeopardizes the political ideals the United States was founded upon. As an interdependent element 

of the Joint Force, failure jeopardizes the safety of warfighters around 

the world. 

Space mastery makes the military space community more lethal 

by enhancing the speed and focus of military spacepower. These traits 

allow military space forces to observe, orient, and decide faster than 

their adversaries, rapidly converging combat power on the right objective at the right time. 

As an intellectual pursuit, space warfare is both science and art. 

Science is the systematic organization of knowledge based on empirical 

evidence and falsifiable hypothesizes, while art is the application of 

imagination, creativity, and abstraction. The science of space warfare 

enables us to exploit the physics of the space domain for military advantage. Science informs our understanding of movement and maneuver, connectivity, remote sensing, and the violent transfer of energy. 

The art of space warfare provides insight into the human elements of 

warfare, including leadership, operational art, uncertainty, emotion, 

will to fight, adaptation, and cunning. 

MASTERY OF SPACE

Whether on land, in the air, at sea, or in cyberspace, warfighters must develop an intuitive understanding of their domain. Military spacepower is no different. Military space forces share 

a kindred spirit with the pioneers who have propelled humanity into 

space and towards the stars. The spirit of orbital flight binds us to the 

larger space community through common traits, skills, and abilities.

The term space mastery refers to a technical understanding of the 

physical, network, and cognitive dimensions of space operations. In 

addition to the physics and engineering that enable modern space 

systems, space mastery also includes a predictive understanding of the 

interests and behaviors of civil, commercial, and foreign space actors. 

Space mastery is developed over time through the deliberate integration of education, training, and experience. 

SPACEPOWER DISCIPLINES

Seven Spacepower Disciplines have emerged as necessary components of military spacepower theory: orbital warfare, space 

electromagnetic warfare, space battle management, space access and 

sustainment, military intelligence, engineering/acquisition, and cyber 

operations. As space warfare develops and evolves, additional disciplines will certainly emerge. However, these initial disciplines are the 

skills the United States Space Force needs when developing its personnel to become the masters of space warfare. The combined integration 

of the seven spacepower disciplines arms the military space forces with 

the intellectual framework required to perform our core competencies.

CHAPTER 5 | MILITARY SPACE FORCES

49 50
CHAPTER 5 | MILITARY SPACE FORCES

Spacepower Disciplines

Orbital Warfare – Knowledge of orbital maneuver as well as 

offensive and defensive fires to preserve freedom of access to the 

domain. Skill to ensure United States and coalition space forces 

can continue to provide capability to the Joint Force while denying 

that same advantage to the adversary.

Space Electromagnetic Warfare – Knowledge of spectrum awareness, maneuver within the spectrum, and non-kinetic fires within 

the spectrum to deny adversary use of vital links. Skill to manipulate physical access to communication pathways and awareness of 

how those pathways contribute to enemy advantage.

Space Battle Management – Knowledge of how to orient to the 

space domain and skill in making decisions to preserve mission, 

deny adversary access, and ultimately ensure mission accomplishment. Ability to identify hostile actions and entities, conduct 

combat identification, target, and direct action in response to an 

evolving threat environment.

Space Access and Sustainment – Knowledge of processes, support, and logistics required to maintain and prolong operations in 

the space domain. Ability to resource, apply, and leverage spacepower in, from, and to the space domain.

Spacepower Disciplines continued

Military Intelligence – Knowledge to conduct intelligence-led, 

threat-focused operations based on the insights. Ability to leverage 

the broader Intelligence Community to ensure military spacepower 

has the ISR capabilities needed to defend the space domain.

Engineering and Acquisition – Knowledge that ensures military 

spacepower has the best capabilities in the world to defend the space 

domain. Ability to form science, technology, and acquisition partnerships with other national security space organizations, commercial entities, Allies, and academia.to ensure the warfighters are 

properly equipped.

Cyber Operations – Knowledge to defend the global networks 

upon which military spacepower is vitally dependent. Ability to employ cyber security and cyber defense of critical space networks and 

systems. Skill to employ future offensive capabilities.

51 52
Spacepower disciplines allow military space professionals to 

prosecute space warfare with speed and focus. Based on Colonel John 

Boyd’s conception of maneuver warfare, this formulation recognizes 

speed as the rapidity of action while focus represents the convergence 

of effects on an objective.29 The principle aim of the tactical operator 

is to master and apply spacepower disciplines. Doing so bestows a 

distinct intellectual advantage, allowing military space forces to dictate 

the tempo of an engagement, shatter an opponent’s decision process 

and force a rival into a reactive or paralytic mental state. 

Spacepower disciplines integrate physics, technology, employment 

objectives, and critical interfaces into a comprehensive body of knowledge. All disciplines consist of fundamental truths, rules-of-thumb, 

performance criteria, and tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) 

or TACSOPs. 

Military spacepower is most effective when operations are conducted through the combined application of all seven disciplines. For 

example, combat power projection must fuse the principles of orbital 

warfare, space electromagnetic warfare, space battle management, 

space access and sustainment, military intelligence, and cyber operations with the capabilities provided by engineering and acquisitions 

into a coherent plan of action.

experience, judgment, and intuition, the art of warfare helps us recognize the pivotal factors upon which victory hinges. Once recognized 

and understood, our skills in the art of warfare sharpen our creative 

instincts, helping us devise decisive solutions. If properly developed 

across our ranks, these skills can unleash a creative force that overwhelms an adversary with audaciously decisive strategy, operational 

design, and tactics. 

We study the art of warfare by reflecting on the past. It is only 

through historical experience — both personal and shared histories 

— that we can appreciate the art of warfare and refine our creative 

faculties. Military history allows us to learn from the mistakes of others 

without suffering the consequences of failure. By dissecting how others 

approached their dilemmas, we sharpen our own intuition and judgement. In order to refine their skills in the art of space, military space 

forces must study military history in breadth, depth, and context.i 

Studying the breadth of military history builds an appreciation 

for the evolution of warfare, from its earliest origins to its modern 

manifestation. By studying this evolution, we can discern what factors 

change and what factors remain constant. Studying in breadth helps 

space professionals understand the war’s enduring nature while providing insight on how warfare’s character will evolve in the future. This 

knowledge highlights how war’s universal principles extend into space. 

It reinforces the role spacepower plays in the larger conflict spectrum 

and prepares us for what the future might hold. 

Military space forces must also study select engagements, battles, 

and campaigns in depth. The goal of studying in depth is to understand the human element of warfare. The lack of historical space 

warfare does not diminish the importance of studying in depth. The 

purpose of such an endeavor is illuminate how the human element 

influences the course of violent competition. Studying warfare from 

any domain in depth allows a warfighter to better forecast the pressures high-intensity conflict will place on their combat responsibilities. 

ART OF SPACE WARFARE — BREADTH, 

DEPTH, AND CONTEXT

By itself, the science of space warfare is agnostic to its application and has limited utility. It is the art of space warfare that 

gives science its relevance; combined, the art and science teach us how 

to fight and win. Warfare is not a deterministic system, and a thinking, competent, and lethal adversary easily thwarts predictable action. 

Prevailing against such an adversary requires us to infuse our plans at 

every level of warfare with leadership, operational art, ingenuity, cunning, and audacity. 

The art of warfare is the application of creativity and imagination to military operations. Studying the art of warfare sharpens our 

intuitive understanding of chance, risk, and reward in battle. Through 

CHAPTER 5 | MILITARY SPACE FORCES

i

This approach for developing skills in the art of warfare through the study of military history 

was described in 1961 in Michael Howard’s essay “The Use and Abuse of Military History.” Reprinted in Parameters, Journal of the U.S. Army War College, Vol. XI, No. 1.

53 54
Studying specific engagements in detail reveals how decisions were 

made, and how uncertainty, friction, and chaos influenced those decisions. This knowledge highlights how luck, timing, and biases impact 

the course of a military engagement. While there is no substitute for 

the pressure of warfighting, studying in depth is the closest approximation to reliving past experiences and fully understanding the elemental 

causes of victory and defeat. 

Finally, military space forces must study the art of warfare in its 

political and social context. As an extension of national policy, war 

can only be understood within the context of the political goals the 

belligerents aim to achieve and the social environment within which 

they must operate. Warfighters must work together with diplomats 

to secure a better peace. In order to effectively do this, military space 

forces must understand how civil-military relationships shape and 

define warfare. Using military history to understand the political and 

diplomatic context for warfare helps us better understand why we fight 

and how policy aims constrain and restrain military operations. While 

important to our understanding of the art of warfare, politics alone 

does not determine the context of warfare. This includes studying 

and understanding how social context influences warfare. Economy, 

culture, language, ethnic history, psychology, and religion all influence 

why and how political entities fight. Social context illuminates an adversary’s will to fight, a central component of war. Understanding how 

interrelationships between these factors shape the character of a nation 

and the social underpinnings of warfare helps us better understand 

adversaries and strategic competitors. 

Like all military leaders, leaders of military space professionals 

shoulder two key responsibilities: mission execution and warfighter 

readiness. Geographically remote or employed-in-place operations 

complicate the balance between these two obligations. When leaders 

must simultaneously balance readiness and mission execution in the 

same unit, fixating on one will inevitably introduce risk to the other. 

Leaders must use their authority to modulate these obligations based 

on the operating environment and mission requirements. The goal 

is finding an optimal balance such that excellence in one strengthens 

the other. In order to achieve this balance, leaders must be intimately 

familiar with the strengths, weaknesses, and organizational climate of 

the forces under their care. 

LEADERSHIP

Leaders must establish and reinforce the purpose and identity of military space forces. In peacetime, these leaders must instill a 

unique vision, ethos, values, and esprit de corps into assigned personnel and the collective organization. During conflict, leaders set objectives, study adversary plans, and provide direction to forces. Because 

of this influence, leaders at all levels must relentlessly drive a distinct 

warfighting culture which seamlessly integrates with the Joint Force to 

defeat our adversaries.

CHAPTER 5 | MILITARY SPACE FORCES

WARFIGHTING READINESS

Warfighter readiness is the ability of military forces to accomplish assigned missions within acceptable risk. Leaders 

ensure their subordinates have the equipment, training, environmental support, and personal resiliency to fight and prevail in conflict. 

The core of readiness is ensuring military space forces are prepared to 

prevail against any adversary based on their training, resources, and 

equipment condition. 

Readiness hinges on warfighters who are physically, mentally, 

and emotionally prepared to execute their mission. Resiliency — an 

individual’s capacity to recover from hardship or difficulties — is 

an often-overlooked element of readiness. The demands of warfare 

amplify the personal and emotional stress a member experiences. 

Those who are physically, mentally, or emotionally overwhelmed will 

struggle to adapt and thrive in dynamic and stressful environments. 

Thus, strengthening resiliency has a direct impact on the lethality and 

effectiveness of a warfighting unit. When it comes to resiliency, caring 

for subordinates and accomplishing the mission are one and the same. 

Safeguarding and strengthening resiliency extends beyond the imperative for readiness and constitutes a solemn commitment every leader 

must embrace.

55 56
MISSION EXECUTION

Space mastery is the hallmark that distinguishes any leader 

during mission execution. Every military space leader must 

be able to make sense of complex scenarios and be capable of distilling complexity into clarity from a remote location. They must also 

comprehend the effect of space capabilities or the subsequent loss of 

those capabilities on the Joint Force. Lastly, they must look towards 

the aftermath of a conflict and properly consider long-term strategic 

or political impacts of any one engagement or action they may take. 

Leadership is key to creating the value system that allows these competencies to thrive across those they lead. 

The fundamental warfighting team during mission execution is a 

crew comprised of individuals who reflect the seven spacepower disciplines. Officer and enlisted leaders of these teams are the tactical-level 

leaders within our force who are entrusted with critical tactical-level 

and operational-level missions. These leadership teams must be able 

to succeed in their mission by leading their team through the fog and 

friction of war, adversary attacks, and equipment failures. The teams 

they lead will not fight alone. Instead, they will enter any engagement 

as part of a networked and interdependent force package, working 

both laterally and vertically with other units. To succeed, tactical-level 

leaders require a combination of situational awareness, technical mastery, and critical thinking. 

AGILITY — INNOVATION — BOLDNESS

Regardless of assignment, rank, or occupational specialty, the 

touchstones of agility, innovation, and boldness must continually guide our actions. As a lean, mission-focused, digital Service, the 

United States Space Force must exemplify these traits by relentlessly 

pursuing new ideas, taking calculated risks, and rapidly learning from 

failure. Leaders must also value and reward these attributes. 

Empowerment is a key component of agility, innovation, and 

boldness. Leaders must continually develop and empower teams capable of seizing the initiative, pursuing innovation, and taking responsibility for their actions. Training, education, and mission-type orders 

are the foundation of empowerment; however, empowered teams 

are built through active practice. Empowering small teams during 

day-to-day operations builds the organizational instincts required for 

empowered teams to thrive in warfare. The transfer of authority ignites 

innovation and initiative by placing the onus of critical thought on the 

team. 

A tolerance for prudent risk-taking is inseparable from the concepts of agility, innovation, and boldness. Military space forces must be 

skilled managers of risk, always seeking mission accomplishment at the 

speed of relevance while recognizing that perfection is often the enemy 

of good-enough. Protracted staffing processes can lengthen decision 

cycles and dilute the transformative potential of proposed innovations. 

Leaders must continually seek the proper balance between desired 

capabilities and fielding schedules, between rigor and efficiency, and 

between deliberation and action.

Periodic failure is acceptable if we are to cultivate agile teams who 

ceaselessly pursue innovation and the actualization of bold ideas. A 

defensible decision process and disciplined approach to risk management must be the standard with which failure in pursuit of empowered innovation is judged. Importantly, mistakes during training are 

often the best teaching tools to evolve critical thinking capability. A 

fault-tolerant culture learns from training mistakes without blaming 

the individual. Building a culture that prizes measured risk taking will 

further advance the frontiers of military spacepower. 

CHAPTER 5 | MILITARY SPACE FORCES

57 58
Organizational culture is difficult to define and harder to measure. 

At a minimum, culture describes what an organization values as a collective group. Leadership plays an important role influencing culture, 

but a stable culture can only flourish once organizational purpose and 

identity are broadly understood and accepted across the group. 

The purpose of military spacepower is to preserve U.S. freedom 

of action in space, enable Joint Force lethality and effectiveness, and 

provide national leadership with independent options for generating 

strategic effects. This purpose, in turn, shapes our identity as equals 

with the other warfighters responsible for military power in the air, 

maritime, land, and cyber domains. 

Military space forces must internalize the science and art of space 

warfare — we must be fluent in Kepler and Clausewitz, Maxwell 

and Sun Tzu, Goddard and Corbett and Mahan, as well as Newton 

and Liddell Hart. As an inherently technical domain, military space 

professionals must embrace the science and art of military spacepower, 

developing an identity that elevates and integrates both into a seamless 

warfighting culture. 

CHAPTER 5 | MILITARY SPACE FORCES

59
REFERENCES

1 Kennedy, John F. (12 September 1962). Moon Speech. Rice University, 

 Houston, TX. 

2 The White House. (2019). National Security Strategy of the United States 

 of America. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/

 NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf. 

3 McDougall, Walter A. (1985). The Heavens and the Earth: A Political 

 History of the Space Age. Basic Books, NY. P. 168. 

4 Ibid, p. 169. 

5 Lang, Sharon Watkins. (18 August 2016). “Project Corona: America’s 

 first photo reconnaissance satellite,” https://www.army.mil/article/173155/

 project_corona_americas_first_photo_reconnaissance_satellite

6 Congressional Record of the United States of America, Proceedings and 

 Debates of the 88th Congress, First Session, Volume 109 – Part 14. (1 

 October 1963 – 15 October 1963). Washington, D.C. P. 19156.

7 Sellers, Jerry John. (2004). Understanding Space: An Introduction to 

 Astronautics. McGraw-Hill’s Custom Publishing. P. 81. 

 Australian Space Academy, Satellite Orbital Lifetimes, available at https://

 www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm. 

 King-Hele, Desmond. (1987). Satellite Orbits in an Atmosphere: Theory 

 and Applications Springer. 

8 National Security Council. (18 August 1958). Statement of Preliminary 

 U.S. Policy on Outer Space, NSC 5814/1. Washington, D.C. https://

 history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v02/d442. 

9 Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2017). Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed 

 Forces of the United States, 25 March 2013, Incorporating Change 1. 

 https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp1_ch1.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank the following members of the initial writing team for the creation of this publication:

1ST EDITION SCP-A:

Casey Beard (Team Lead), Christopher Fernengel (Deputy Team 

Lead), Kenny Grosselin (Lead Author and Editor), Amber Dawson, 

Justin Dawson, Brandon Davenport, Etan Funches, Pat Gaynor, Nic 

Holtz, Nate Lee, Michael Mariner, Drew Miller, Genevieve Minzyk, 

Peter Norsky, Josh Print, Even Rogers, Eric Snyder, Anthony Surman, 

and Rob Yarnes. 

2ND EDITION SCP-A:

Jack Anthony, Kelly Caggiano, Steven DePalmer, Brian Goodman, 

and Andrew Palski

EDITORS: 

Francis Doiron, Jamie Green, and Rosie Suerdieck

CONTRIBUTIONS: 

The following authors made significant written contributions that 

played an important role shaping the ideas presented in this 

publication:

Donald Cox & Michael Stoiko (1958)

Ashton Carter (1984, 85, 86, 87)

S. Pete Worden & John Shaw (2002)

Charles Lutes & Peter Hays (2011)

Julian Corbett (1911) Steven Lambakis (2001)

F. H. Clauser (1946) John Jumper (2002)

William Durch (1984) Stephen Whiting (2002)

Walter McDougall (1985) M. V. Smith (2002)

John Klein (2006, 19) Paul Stares (1985, 1987)

David Lupton (1988) Peter Hays (1994)

Scott Pace (2012) Robert Newberry (1997)

Brent Ziarnick (2015) Jim Oberg (1999)

Troy Endicott (2016) Everett Dolman (2001)

Joan Johnson-Freese (2016) Matthew Donovan (2019)

Cover Image courtesy of NASA 61 62
20 USSPACECOM. (2020). 4 Lines of Operations: Space Warfare, Space 

 Domain Awareness, Space Support to Operations, and Space Service 

 Support. Colorado Springs, CO.

21 Joint Chiefs of Staff. (10 April 2018). Joint Publication 3-14, Space 

 Operations. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/

 jp3_14.pdf. 

22 Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education. (2018). 

 Annex 3-14, Counterspace Operations, https://www.doctrine.af.mil/

 Portals/61/documents/Annex_3-14/3-14-D05-SPACE-Counterspace-Ops.

 pdf. 

23 Joint Chiefs of Staff. (22 October 2018). Joint Publication 3-0, Joint 

 Operations, 17 January, 2017, Incorporating Change 1. 

 https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_0ch1.

 pdf?ver=2018-11-27-160457-910

24 Ibid.

25 McChrystal, Stanley. (2015). Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for 

 a Complex World. Penguin Random House, New York, NY.

26 Ibid, II-7. 

27 Williamson Murray. (2011). War, Strategy, and Military Effectiveness.

 Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. 

28 Heinlein, Robert. (2013). Double Star. Arc Manor, Rockville, MD. P. 91. 

29 Department of the Navy. (2018). Marine Corps Doctrine Publication 1, 

 Warfighting, 4 April 2018, 2-19, https://www.marines.mil/News/

 Publications/MCPEL/Electronic-Library-Display/Article/899837/mcdp-1.

10 Dolman, Everett Carl. (2016). “Seeking Strategy” in Strategy: Context and 

 Adaptation from Archidamus to Airpower, ed. Richard J. Bailey Jr., James 

 W. Forsyth Jr, and Mark O. Yeisley. Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD. 

 P. 9. 

11 Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2017). Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed 

 Forces of the United States, 25 March 2013, Incorporating Change 1. 

 https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp1_ch1.pdf

12 Ibid, p. ix

13 Byman, Daniel L., Waxman, Matthew, and Larson, Eric. (1999). Air Power 

 as a Coercive Instrument. Project AIR FORCE, RAND Corporation. P. 1. 

 https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1061.html

14 Joint Chiefs of Staff. (January 2020). DoD Dictionary of Military and 

 Associated Terms. www.jcs.mil, p. 64. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/

 Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf

15 Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2017). Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed 

 Forces of the United States, 25 March 2013, Incorporating Change 1. 

 https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp1_ch1.pdf

16 Ibid, p. I-4. 

17 von Clausewitz, Carl. (1984). On War. Trans. Ed. M. Howard and P. Paret. 

 Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. P. 75.

18 Schriever, Bernard. (19 February 1957). ICBM: A Step Towards Space 

 Conquest. Speech delivered at the Astronautic Symposium. San Diego, CA. 

19 The White House. (2019). National Security Strategy of the United States 

 of America. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/

 NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf. 

63 64