Episode 6: Victus Nox Illustrates the Rise of Tactically Responsive Space

The Elara Edge: Expert Insights on Space Security

Episode 6: Victus Nox Illustrates the Rise of Tactically Responsive Space

Host: Scott King

Subject Matter Expert: Elara Nova Senior Partner Col (Ret.) Rob Biongiovi

00:02 – 01:32

Space-based capabilities are essential to Department of Defense operations. But modern threats, both kinetic and non-kinetic, are emerging to disable or destroy space-based assets, potentially leaving forces across the DOD exposed and vulnerable. Now, the DOD and the Space Force are seeking to establish what’s called the “Tactically Responsive Space” capability – or TacRS – by 2026, with the objective of re-establishing compromised space-based capabilities in an operationally relevant timeline.

The Victus Nox demonstration, completed in September of 2023 – was a major step in this direction – as the Space Force and its industry partners successfully fielded, launched, and initiated satellite operations in a timeline previously thought to be untenable – accomplishing in hours and days, what traditionally takes months to years.

Welcome to The Elara Edge: Expert Insights on Space Security. I’m your host Scott King. And here to talk about the Tactically Responsive Space mission – and the role of launch in facilitating TacRS capability – is Retired Colonel Rob Bongiovi, senior partner at Elara Nova. Colonel Bongiovi previously served as the Director of Launch Systems Enterprise Directorate with the United States Air Force, before retiring in 2022.

Sir, thank you for joining me at the Elara Edge today. As we get started, can you share your perspective on the Tactically Responsive Space mission, and the role of launch in the TacRS process?

01:33 – 02:29

Sure. Tactically Responsive Space is a concept that explores the use of end-to-end space operations in a more responsive manner than we did in the past, say, in our Cold War or post-9/11 days.

It means the ability to get from where we need to launch something, to launching that thing, with an affordable amount of prep work, with real meaningful capability at the end. Tactically Responsive Space grew out of the old Tactically Responsive Launch. But it’s really not about launch – launch isn’t the problem that’s hard to solve.

It’s really about the end-to-end solution. It’s about deciding what to launch and where and why. The technical process of not just having the launch vehicles ready, but satellites ready and the payloads ready to go, and then having them integrated into the CONOPS, so that they’re ready to be used. These are not going to be things that you can just launch and operate if you haven’t practiced or exercised them or used them in wargaming, so there’s a lot of work to do there.

02:29 – 02:44 

So Tactically Responsive Space was born out of the Tactically Responsive Launch concept. How does this change reflect how the role of launch is changing – from how it’s been done historically – to where it needs to be to meet the modern and future threat environment?

02:45 – 03:28

So launch is always hard. I mean, putting anything in orbit, no matter how small, is going to require a lot of work from a physics perspective. But historically, we’ve really been launching expensive missions that we couldn’t afford not to get to orbit. Launch is definitely the riskiest part in a satellite’s life and we put a whole bunch of processes in place to buy-down that risk.

But what’s being introduced here is some urgency. And that urgency is really going to force people to roll up your sleeves, get the work done, and figure out how we get through that process very fast in a way that we can tolerate the risk in order to get capability on-orbit when and where we need it in response to, you know, real-time threats. 

03:29 – 04:21

The urgency you mentioned is a core tenet to the TacRS construct – which emphasizes re-establishing a compromised space-based capability in a timely manner. 

In many ways, the Victus Nox demonstration accelerated these operational timelines. Mission goals included: 

Considering these accomplishments – what makes the Victus Nox demonstration an appropriate representation of leveraging commercial capability for the launch and TacRS mission?

04:22 – 05:18

Yeah, this is a great example of a good partnership between the commercial industry and the Department of Defense. The ability to do these kinds of timelines was largely driven by the fact that the commercial industry is developing systems and people were investing in systems that were going faster because the commercial industry needed them.

And there’s also a reasonably strong market for these kinds of launches. And so, the government really implemented a strategy of, ‘We don’t need to pick a winner here. We need to let this mature.’ So we’ve been saying to industry is – you guys are building launch vehicles that are going after a certain market space, and our market space is a little different, but not that different. 

So what do we have to do to expand the market space so that, you know, we meet both needs? Victus Nox really shows how far we’ve come. The government has worked with industry and really taken advantage of the commercial developments to achieve on-orbit capability very quickly at the speed of need.

05:19 – 05:37

Ahead of the Victus Nox demonstration – the Space Force provided a “menu” of potential mission scenarios to their space industry partners, so that they could plan accordingly.

Why are these “menus,” so to speak, important for ensuring industry partners are informed and prepared for potential mission requirements? 

05:38 – 06:45

You know, I think these menus were really smart. In order to plan out a launch – there is a lot of analysis that needs to be done. There’s a huge process to make sure that we can launch a satellite without breaking it. 

It’s a bunch of loads, a bunch of trajectory analysis that really is how do you get to that final orbit?

And then, you know, you really need to also know what’s out there and make sure that you launch in a way that misses everything else that’s out there, so you don’t cause any debris or anything like that. And, historically, a 30-day timeline was incredibly hard to do that. And most of that’s really about how much processing and capability do you have?

So these menus really allow the presentation of a capability to the operators that gives them what they need, but also allows the technical side and the real, you know, the real hard work that’s going to have to be done launch-by-launch to be in place and just be tailored for the particular mission at-hand.

So I think it was really smart that they implemented this menu concept. And I think as they refine it – it’ll become apparent that that is sufficient to get what we need for on-orbit capability.

06:45 – 6:57

Commercial space – and commercial launch – are budding industries. What are some other important considerations for the Space Force and the DOD to account for, as they seek to grow its relationship with industry partners in these fields?

06:58 – 08:17

This scenario is really well-suited for leveraging commercial capability. First, the kinds of systems that industry is developing are reasonably close to what we need for the military. And second, when you use commercial items and modify them, you can usually do this much faster than a regular development. And you can buy them in a way that avoids a whole bunch of bureaucratic inertia and so by combining those, I think it’s a good match.

I don’t think it’s perfect. We have to become more accepting of each other’s ways of buying down the risk of launch. The government may walk in with a set of tools and processes that they think is the only way to do it. And industry may have a different way, but we’re starting to prove to each other that we can convince each other, you know, ‘How do you use each other’s tools in a way to get the risk to where we need it to be?’

It’s the urgency that’s changed. There wasn’t there wasn’t a universal acceptance of urgency five years ago. There certainly wasn’t ten or 15 years ago. And the urgency is really driving big changes across the board in CONOPS, in mission assurance, in contracting and system design. And we should be asking ourselves, ‘How do we take these tools we have and use them to go faster?’

Speed reduces costs. I mean, there’s probably a point where you’re going so fast, it’s going to cost more. But generally, as we go faster, it’s going to actually help costs across the board come down.

08:18 – 08:22

And sir, where does the Space Force go from here? What happens next?

08:23 – 09:47

As we previously discussed, you know, launch is just one step in the delivery of the capability to orbit and giving it to the warfighters.

So, putting launch between you and capability in-orbit is not always the best strategy and figuring out how to minimize the risk is probably good. I think that achieving these timelines show it can be done. When somebody shows it can be done, all of a sudden other people are doing it.

So, I think as the Space Force goes forward, they are going to continue to advertise that they’re doing it at this speed and that, you know, industry is going to start more generically, that’s going to be a capability that industry can provide – the speeds that we’re talking about: days instead of weeks and weeks instead of months, kind of thing.

So I think that’s a huge deal. And I think that’s going to really allow the warfighters and the operational planners to open up their trade space and really give them better solutions in the interest of national security. 

You know, we’re in a world where launching certainly a small satellite in a day or days or a week – that’s not out of the realm of possibility. It’s going to get pretty routine. So, this is really relevant in how we get there. 

So, my parting thought, though, is that we can’t forget that this isn’t about this launch vehicle. This isn’t about the satellite. This is a capability. And to get the capability on-orbit and employed in a fight – we have to think through the entire process from the call-up, through the launch, and satellite activation and mission execution and all that has to move very urgently at the speed of need of the warfighter. So, you know, the Space Force really needs to keep working on this. 

09:47 – 09:56

Thank you, sir. And so how can Elara Nova – with its team of military and space industry experts – contribute to the adoption of TacRS capability?

09:57 – 10:26

The Elara Nova team has expertise across the spectrum on this kind of problem. They’ve had people that served decades in the military, they’ve served in the Pentagon, they’ve served in the White House, they served in the Hill, they’ve served in industry, and they really understand the nature of the threat and the speed at which we need to operate.

And they can help with that understanding. We can help industry come up with the plans and government come up with strategies to put something executable in place that results in a real capability, a capability that the nation can afford that imposes costs on the enemy or defeats the threat.

10:27 – 11:16

If you’re interested in learning more about the role of launch in the Tactically Responsive Space mission – visit our Insights page at www.elaranova.com.  

This has been an episode of The Elara Edge: Expert Insights on Space Security. As a global consultancy and professional services firm focused on helping businesses and government agencies maximize the strategic advantages of the space domain, Elara Nova is your source for expertise and guidance in space security.

If you liked what you heard today, please subscribe to our channel and leave us a rating. Music for this podcast was created by Patrick Watkins of PW Audio. This episode was edited and produced by Regia Multimedia Services. I’m your host, Scott King, and join us next time at the Elara Edge.

Recent Demonstration Highlights Critical Capability for Delivering Rapid Response to Orbit

As space evolves into an increasingly hostile warfighting domain, rapid response capability is
becoming an essential part of Department of Defense (DOD) operations. That’s why when the
Space Force and its industry partners successfully fielded, launched and initiated satellite
operations during its Victus Nox demonstration, the record-setting feat foreshadowed the
emerging significance of the Tactically Responsive Space (TacRS) mission. But to assert
“responsive space” capability effectively, the Space Force must account for the unexpected,
while at the same time collaborating with its commercial launch and satellite partners to facilitate TacRS mission success.

“Tactically responsive space is a construct that explores the use of in-space operations in a
more responsive manner than we did in our Cold War and post-9/11 ways, where we had the
time to launch and deliberately integrate and update capabilities into constellations,” said Elara
Nova senior partner and Col (Ret.) Rob Bongiovi. “Launch is hard from a physics perspective,
but we know how to do it. The hard problem is the end-to-end problem: everything from deciding what you’re going to launch, to the where and why, into the operational employment and force presentation process.”

Responsive Space an Emerging Operational Concept

The TacRS construct first emerged in the past decade, with an original emphasis on “responsive
launch” as a capability. Today, the “Tactically Responsive Space” label adopted by the DOD more
accurately reflects the reality that launch is just one factor – albeit an integral one – in
establishing rapid response capability in space.

“‘Responsive space’ means the ability to respond to a threat quickly with a minimal and
affordable amount of prep work,” said Col (Ret.) Bongiovi, the former Director of the Launch
Systems Enterprise Directorate with the United States Air Force. “Launch is just the tool to make it happen, and one that is really about getting mass to orbit. You have to know you can launch a payload and not break it.”

The TacRS requirement is an operational concept that has developed from the DOD’s historical
approach to national security launch. In the traditional space environment, there were few
threats to U.S. assets. But in an increasingly contested domain, TacRS is really about preparing
for the unexpected.

Launching payloads into space, however, is typically an expensive and lengthy process that is
planned years in advance. Throughout history, the U.S. was largely able to perform launch
operations with minimal interference. But now, emerging capabilities from Russia and China
have changed the dynamic of space operations.

The Role of Launch in TacRS

In order to rapidly field an operational space-based capability, however, the new asset must first
successfully reach orbit.

“Launch is definitely the riskiest part of the satellite’s lifetime and we put a big process in place
to buy down that risk,” Col (Ret.) Bongiovi said. “Now, we are inserting urgency into the process. This TacRS capability is required in terms of being able to react to a threat.”

With the objective of establishing TacRS capability by 2026, the Space Force executed its Victus Nox mission in September of 2023. The operational targets for Victus Nox were far ahead of the Space Force’s most recent responsive space demonstration in June of 2021, when Northrop Grumman executed its Tactically Responsive Launch 2 (TacRL-2) mission. In that demonstration, the Space Force acquired a payload, mated it to Northrop’s Pegasus XL rocket
and launched it into orbit within 21 days.

“Tactically Responsive Launch 2 (TacRL-2) had some pretty aggressive timelines associated
with it,” Col (Ret.) Bongiovi said. “But Victus Nox accelerated all those timelines and included getting the satellite turned on in operations – which is very good in my mind.”

Victus Nox Shatters Responsive Space Timelines

For Victus Nox, the Space Force partnered with industry partners Firefly Aerospace and
Millennium Space Systems – A Boeing Company. The space domain awareness payload built by
Millennium Space Systems was transported to a launchpad and mated to a Firefly Aerospace
rocket within 57 hours, just ahead of the established 60-hour mission goal.

Once the launch notice was given by the Space Force, mission requirements stated the payload
and its rocket were to be launched within a 24-hour window. In the Victus Nox demonstration,
the launch was accomplished in 27 hours, after a three-hour weather delay.

After reaching orbit, the space domain awareness satellite was then tasked with initiating
operations within 48 hours. The Victus Nox mission accomplished this requirement in 37 hours.

“Victus Nox is one of those moments where now that we’ve publicly demonstrated we can do
this, then it’ll become more commonplace and cheaper,” Col (Ret.) Bongiovi said. “The demonstration will enable the operation planners to think through what we can do now with this capability and perhaps provide a better solution in the interest of national security.”

Commercial Partnerships Critical to TacRS Success

The success of Victus Nox can be attributed in part to the strengths of the commercial space
industry and serves as an example of how the Space Force can leverage these strengths to
establish TacRS capability.

“The baseline systems the commercial industry are developing for their needs is reasonably
close to what we need,” Col (Ret.) Bongiovi said. “Commercial developments can be faster and we can usually buy them as a service or in a way that avoids bureaucratic inertia. But that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. There has to be an understanding of the whole scenario in how you employ these assets in the interest of national security.”

The real work, now, is to incorporate that capability into even faster operational timelines.

However, enabling TacRS mission success means the Space Force must make the appropriate
preparations and inform its commercial partners of its military requirements. In Victus Nox, the
Space Force provided its commercial partners with seven “menu” options of its tentative
requirements for the mission.

“If people are going to try to start launching within 24 hours and we have a two-week process to
start notifying people, ‘How do we change the boundaries or operations on that?’” Col (Ret.) Bongiovi said. “These are not going to be things that you can do if you haven’t already launched,
operated, trained and exercised these procedures. The technical process of having not only a
launch vehicle ready, but the payload ready and integrated into the operations is why those
‘menus’ are necessary.”

“Victus Haze” the Next Iteration for TacRS

The Space Force is already seeking to capitalize on its momentum for future TacRS
demonstrations. In collaboration with the Defense Innovation Unit, the Space Force is already
planning its next TacRS mission – dubbed “Victus Haze” – to develop this capability further.

“In the last decade, we’ve seen both small and large launches get down to six to three month
timelines, but even those timelines are not operationally relevant,” Col (Ret.) Bongiovi said. “We’re in a world where it is realistic to regularly launch a space capability in a few weeks or a month on the large launch side and a day to a week on the small launch side.”

Now, as a consulting firm seeking to facilitate opportunities to merge military requirements with commercial space capability, Elara Nova is positioning itself to orchestrate these connections between the Space Force and its commercial partners.

“Our team has expertise across the spectrum for this kind of problem,” Col (Ret.) Bongiovi said. “We have people who’ve worked at all levels on the military side and on the industry side, who really understand the nature of the threat and the speed at which we need to operate. We can support the execution of those plans, not just for a one-off demonstration, but for a real capability that the nation can afford and that impose costs on our enemy or defeats a threat.”

Elara Nova is a global consultancy and professional services firm focused on helping
businesses and government agencies maximize the strategic advantages of the space domain.
Learn more at https://elaranova.com/.

National Security Space Launch Program Adapting to the Modern Threat Environment

At the start of 2024, the United States’ adversaries projected an ambitious launch cadence for putting space assets into orbit: China has planned 100 launches, while Russia has planned over 40 launches of its own. Due to what is often blurred lines between military, civil and commercial space programs for these nation-states, the true nature of these launches can be difficult to ascertain. Meanwhile, through its own National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program, the United States has planned 21 launches in 2024 – nearly double its 2023 launch cadence. Altogether, these escalating launch cadences represent the operational imperative to maintain “Assured Access to Space,” (AATS), that has been a trademark of the United State’s space superiority for the past several decades. 

“Assured Access to Space is knowing the launch will be successful when we need to get payloads, satellites and instruments, particularly those for national security purposes, into space,” said General (Ret.) Lester L. Lyles, senior principal advisor at Elara Nova: The Space Consultancy. “The Assured Access to Space capabilities that China and Russia have established signal that the emerging threat environment in space is robust.” 

These high launch cadences are representative of what will be an increasingly congested environment for on-orbit satellites. In this more populated space domain, the NSSL program’s efficiency and reliability in getting military assets to orbit will be vital to the effectiveness of broader Department of Defense (DOD) efforts.  

“Maintaining Assured Access to Space also means maintaining our strategic advantage,” said General Lyles, the former Commander of Air Force Materiel Command for the United States Air Force (USAF). “For the most part, we have been successful in increasing our launch cadence on a cost-efficient and assured basis. But the threat environment shows that we need to further develop launch cadence capability, particularly for national security.” 

Developing Resiliency in Launch Providers

The DOD is actively bolstering its national security launch capabilities by broadening its pool of launch providers. Now in its third phase of contracts, the NSSL is delineating its awards across two ‘lanes.’ Lane One contracts are designated for smaller launch companies, particularly those that might not yet be certified for some defense missions. Meanwhile, Lane Two will be held for more established launch providers that can reliably meet more challenging and essential mission requirements.  

With this two-lane approach, the Space Force is seeking to meet its launch needs of today, while simultaneously creating a commercial space launch market for the future. 

“The two lane approach makes a great distinction,” said General Lyles, the former Vice Chief of Staff at Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. “There is a profound need for small, proliferated launch providers that are developing inexpensive ways to launch payloads into orbit. But by reserving Lane Two missions for more mature and experienced launch providers, Lane One contracts can focus on a panoply of companies that provide cheaper access and capability.”  

Despite higher launch cadences, the intricacies of the launch process hardly guarantee a reliable rate of success. Launching assets into orbit is a difficult and expensive endeavor, where failure is – at times – an inevitability faced by both the United States and its adversaries.  

“Our adversaries have failures in launch, some of which we hear about and others that we don’t,” said General Lyles, who previously served as the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. “So the best answer is to maintain the investment in our space launch capability, both Lane One and Lane Two, and ensure we put additional resources into encouraging innovative launch capabilities and activities that will keep pace with the emerging threat environment.” 

EELV Established Assured Access to Space

To support these efforts, the Space Force is looking to the commercial sector to develop solutions that will mitigate the risks and increase the reliability of launch. In essence, the two-lane approach the NSSL is taking today aims to establish the commercial launch market that never materialized under its predecessor: the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. 

“The main objective of EELV was to develop a family of launch vehicles that would be capable of leading the entire spectrum of weight classes for national security space launches,” said General Lyles, the former Commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center. “The United States anticipated a robust commercial launch market that would provide a cost-competitive and sufficient rate of launch vehicle options. That forecast never came into fruition, and so the EELV program had to change its acquisition strategy from a standard Air Force development program to a dual-commercialized approach, involving primarily the Atlas V and the Delta IV rockets.” 

Initiated in 1994, EELV was successful in establishing two different families of launch vehicles that maintained the United States’ AATS capability over the past several decades: Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V and The Boeing Company’s Delta IV. Today, national security space launches conducted with these rockets are operated under the dual-commercialized, joint-venture of the United Launch Alliance (ULA).  

“ULA stabilized the launch vehicle market,” said General Lyles, who previously served as the Director of the Medium-Launch Vehicles Program and Space-Launch Systems offices. “Building, developing and launching satellites is expensive and having assured access means that we – the military customer – can be assured that when it’s time to launch an asset into space, the satellite will get into orbit and function properly when it gets there. National security provides a steady market for launch and EELV ensured that we wouldn’t have to defer to foreign sources like the French, Japanese or even Russian launch systems.” 

A Name Change to Reflect a Changing Requirement

The EELV solution, however, still had traces of foreign sources within its supply chain. Namely, the Atlas V launch system relied on the RD-180 booster engine designed and manufactured by the Russian Federation. After Russia invaded Crimea in 2014, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015 prohibited launch services with Russian-designed or manufactured engines. The NDAA was further amended in subsequent years to further incentivize domestic engine alternatives for the EELV program, which in turn also inspired a name change for the program to better reflect the evolving nature of the modern launch market. 

“The aims and objectives of NSSL remain the same as EELV,” General Lyles said. “But the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) directed the name change to ‘National Security Space Launch’ to reflect the consideration for both reusable and expendable launch vehicles in future solicitations.” 

This shift in prioritizing reusable and expendable launch vehicles is an emerging solution to accommodate the inherently risky and unpredictable nature of launch.  

“Assurance is the key buzzword,” General Lyles said. “We are achieving that goal of assurance, but I’m knocking on wood as an old launch developer who has seen the good, the bad and the ugly of launch. Assurance only comes with expert reviews ensuring every step in the launch process is done according to specification.” 

Innovative Launch Solutions to Maintain Assured Access to Space

Furthermore, Space System Command’s AATS program is also developing alternative counterspace capabilities in response to China and Russia’s ambitious launch cadences. One solution is the Tactically Responsive Space (TacRS) mission, in which launch services are accelerated on more responsive and operational timelines.  

“The idea that a peer competitor can demonstrate a high launch cadence means that we can’t just rest on our laurels,” General Lyles said. “We need to have the capability to rapidly put an asset into space to fulfill a strategic and tactical capability. That requirement necessitates a whole family of launch vehicles, as well as a suite of small and proliferated satellite capabilities and mission control systems, in order to be both rapid and responsive.” 

After the largely successful Victus Nox demonstration of TacRS capability in 2023, the Defense Innovation Unit is looking to accelerate launch timelines further through its next demonstration: Victus Haze. Therefore, AATS can be established with not just a high launch cadence, but by including other specialized counterspace capabilities as well.  

“As the United States, we need to be able to counter any potential peer threat in a rapid manner, so that we maintain superior space capabilities,” General Lyles said. “TacRS satisfies not only assured access, but rapid access for operational needs in space. Responsive space involves everything from requirements, to command and control, small satellite development and the actual launches to get a capability on-orbit rapidly. We have shown that we can prototype a program like that with Victus Nox.” 

The accelerated timelines responsive launch requires, however, also heightens the risks and challenges inherent to a successful launch. 

“Responsive timelines means you can’t depend on a slow decision process, a slow budget process, or a slow command and control capability,” General Lyles said. “Every element of the launch process needs to be examined to ensure we have honed the requirements and processes associated with the launch, so that we can rapidly respond to an immediate threat.” 

Space Force to Develop Future Capabilities and Requirements

Innovative operating concepts like TacRS will be a prominent characteristic of Space Futures Command, which the Space Force is standing up to support its broader efforts in developing counterspace capabilities for the future threat environment in space. Therefore, with a steadily increasing launch cadence, combined with other capabilities such as TacRS, the future AATS requirement and capability can be realized.  

“I’m encouraged by the Secretary of the Air Force’s emphasis on developing capabilities that match or exceed our peer competitors,” General Lyles said. “Space Futures Command will not only consider the future needs and capabilities for space, but will also develop the personnel to operate and implement counterspace solutions.” 

This forward-thinking mindset is also embraced at Elara Nova, where its roster of military and space industry experts understand the role of innovative and critical thinking in developing solutions and capabilities that meet the national security space demands of the future.  

“Elara Nova utilizes their team of subject matter experts, who demonstrate leadership and a willingness to explore new capabilities,” General Lyles said. “Elara Nova’s experts don’t just rely on what we know of today’s capabilities, but are innovative in understanding the evolving threat environment so the Department of Defense and the National Security Space Launch community can make the appropriate upgrades to accomplish assured and rapid access to space.” 

Elara Nova is a global consultancy and professional services firm focused on helping businesses and government agencies maximize the strategic advantages of the space domain. Learn more at https://elaranova.com/.