In general, the S&T community includes government research laboratories and testing facilities as well as contractors and academic institutions that support these facilities. This community conducts research and development to support military or intelligence applications, such as space or weapon systems. While intelligence community funding levels for S&T are classified, DOD uses Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds for S&T work, including space S&T work, some of which is classified. Space S&T efforts are undertaken by many government organizations. While DOD and the intelligence community comprise the vast majority of organizations involved in space S&T, several civilian government organizations are also involved, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of Energy (DOE). NASA’s space S&T efforts are significant and drive advances in space science, technology, and exploration and often can involve technology transfers to DOD and other agencies. NOAA, which provides space weather information to other government organizations and the public, conducts research in the development of new satellite sensors, creates new applications for using satellite data, and develops innovative approaches for handling increased data rates as well as increases in computing power and data storage. DOE develops sensors that collect space weather data, and its laboratories often collaborate on space S&T efforts that are sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Air Force Research Laboratory, or the Naval Research Laboratories. Strategy developers told us that NASA and NOAA were not consulted in the development of the strategy because there was no statutory requirement to do so. According to strategy developers, DOE was involved in the development of the strategy even though their involvement was not required. DOD RDT&E investment is separated into seven discrete investment categories known as budget activities. Within the DOD S&T community, the first three categories—which represent basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development activities, and are collectively known as S&T activities—use RDT&E funds. Figure 1 describes the three categories of DOD S&T investment. Congress required DOD to develop and implement a space S&T strategy in 2004. DOD was not required to collaborate with DNI in developing the 2004 strategy. DOD’s 2004 strategy described six specific investment areas: assured access to space; responsive space capability; assured space operations; spacecraft technology; information superiority; and the S&T workforce. The most significant space S&T goals were identified within each area, with the exception of S&T workforce. The strategy stated it would be necessary to successfully develop and demonstrate the requisite technologies in a relevant environment within the short-term, defined to be within the next 5 years, and the long-term, defined to be in the year 2020 or beyond. The 2004 strategy also discussed implementation mechanisms for the strategy, the importance of transitioning new technology to fielded capability, and an approach to assess progress toward achieving the goals. Though there are many diverse organizations carrying out S&T efforts related to space and a considerable amount being invested, DOD did not update its space S&T strategy between 2004 and 2011. Our review of DOD’s 2004 space S&T strategy found that it provided a foundation for coordination among space S&T efforts but lacked detail in key areas needed to achieve the strategy’s goals. We found that DOD had taken an initial positive step in optimizing investments in space S&T projects by establishing short- and long-term goals. However, we also identified significant challenges or barriers for DOD in implementing the strategy such as inadequate funding visibility, decreased testing resources, workforce deficiencies, and long-standing incentives that encourage technology development to take place within acquisition programs rather than the S&T community. We recommended that the strategy contain stronger linkages to DOD’s requirements-setting process, identify additional measures for assessing progress in achieving strategic goals, address barriers to achievement, and include all efforts related to space S&T. In addition, we recommended establishing protocols and mechanisms for enhancing coordination and knowledge sharing among the DOD S&T community, acquisition programs involved in space, and DOD intelligence agencies. DOD agreed with our recommendations. Our comparison of the strategy against the statutory reporting requirements found that the strategy addresses eight statutory requirements and DOD has plans to address two other statutory requirements. For two of the requirements involving strategy implementation, DOD has asserted that its normal budgetary process will suffice. While the requirements were met, additional information that could enable DOD to successfully implement the strategy was not included. See table 1 for our assessment of the strategy. The contents of the strategy address four primary areas: (1) short- and long-term goals; (2) goal implementation; (3) goal assessment; and (4) the transition of space S&T technology to space acquisition programs. The strategy outlines a total of 54 space S&T goals—30 short-term and 24 long-term, and describes existing, routine DOD processes such as program planning and budgeting procedures to help implement the strategy. It also mentions that periodic structured and informal programmatic and technical reviews are used to assess progress toward achievement of DOD goals and objectives and describes how there is no distinct process for transitioning space S&T products toward ultimate application in acquisition programs, while also describing several examples considered “success stories” in the transition of space S&T. While DOD addresses, or plans to address, the statutory requirements, in some instances, the inclusion of more detailed information could have allowed an opportunity for more successful implementation of the strategy. Specifically, in relation to the strategy’s goals, it does not establish a newly developed implementation plan for the achievement of the goals. Instead, the strategy describes a plan for implementation where DOD components essentially implement the strategy as a routine element of their existing program planning and budgeting procedures while employing processes that are specifically tailored to each component’s mission function. Assistant Secretary of Defense, Research and Engineering (ASD (R&E)) officials, who served as leads in developing the strategy (strategy developers) also cited a program called Reliance 21 as helping to manage and implement its entire S&T portfolio, including space S&T. While creation of a newly developed implementation plan was not a specific statutory requirement, it potentially could have provided a more delineated, exacting process for successfully achieving the strategy’s goals. Also, DOD strategy developers told us that, as part of implementing the entire strategy, they did not specifically direct DOD components and research laboratories to meet the statutory requirements to (1) identify their research projects in support of the strategy that contribute directly and uniquely to the development of space technology, or (2) inform top DOD officials of their planned budget and planned schedule for executing those projects. However, officials explained that research components and research laboratories would do these activities as part of the normal DOD budgetary process. DOD strategy developers also told us that their entire S&T portfolio, including space S&T, is managed using the existing Reliance 21 process, including implementation planning, execution, coordination, and review. They further explained that the Reliance 21 S&T Strategic Overview process fosters awareness and joint planning among senior S&T leadership and enhances coordination among DOD’s S&T investment managers. In addition, the ASD(R&E), in conjunction with the S&T Executive Committee, conducts an annual review of all DOD S&T investments, and Space-related Advanced Technology Demonstrations are reviewed yearly at the Air Force Applied Technology Council held as part of the Air Force Space Command Space S&T Council. Strategy developers further added that cooperation, collaboration, and partnerships among the S&T organizations are also achieved through a variety of mechanisms such as technology forums, workshops, conferences, project and program reviews, international agreements, partnerships, and on-site liaisons. Another example where key details were not present in the strategy is the establishment of 54 total goals without any prioritization. Though prioritization is not a statutory requirement, given the breadth and scope of space S&T development activities and issues we have identified in the past with respect to a lack of coordination and prioritization, it is important, and indeed a best practice, that goals be prioritized. We have also identified several, additional strategic planning best practices in the next section of this report that were not followed in the development of the strategy. If the strategy had more closely followed these best practices, it potentially could have allowed for the development of a more robust and useful space S&T strategy that addresses some of the major challenges in space S&T. While the content of the space S&T strategy meets statutory requirements, it does not address fundamental challenges facing the space S&T community. These challenges include human capital shortages, growing fiscal pressures, and the difficulty in transitioning space S&T to acquisition programs. While adopting best practices in strategic planning for future versions of the strategy is not required under the current statutory requirements, we identified some best practice elements that could be used to develop well-structured goals in any strategic plan. Recent DOD-sponsored and congressional studies have addressed concerns over the DOD S&T laboratory personnel and the loss of talent in the space workforce. In addition, our prior reports have identified challenges facing the space S&T community. We have also consistently reported on today’s challenging budgetary environment and that many of DOD’s problems with poor cost and schedule outcomes on acquisition programs can be attributed to deficiencies (1) in strategic planning for critical technologies such as S&T investments, and (2) in processes for technology development and transition to acquisition programs. In fact, in S&T areas across DOD, we have found challenges in transitioning new technology from the laboratory to acquisition programs.