The Pentagon’s long war with its own procurement bureaucracy is entering a new phase.
The Trump administration has directed an overhaul of defense acquisition by accelerating modernization and embracing commercial innovation — goals that, if realized, could provide a critical edge in space.
The renewed emphasis on defense acquisition reform aligns with many changes already underway in the Space Force.
Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy, the Space Force’s acting acquisition chief, struck a cautiously optimistic tone in recent congressional testimony, highlighting programs that embrace a more commercial approach.
One is the forthcoming acquisition of new satellites for the next-generation Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program, replacing custom-built military satellites with commercially designed alternatives, The next-gen GSSAP program, which monitors objects in the geosynchronous belt 22,000 miles above Earth, represents a departure from traditional military satellite development, which typically involves custom designs.
Similarly, the resilient Positioning, Navigation and Timing initiative seeks to leverage small commercial satellites and PNT services in an effort to provide backup options to the Global Positioning System, whose signals are increasingly being targeted for jamming and spoofing.
But procurement demons continue to haunt major Space Force programs.
The Operational Control Segment for GPS, known as OCX, a command and control system for the GPS constellation, was designed to provide enhanced cybersecurity and broader compatibility with civil and military signals. Originally scheduled for delivery in 2018, OCX is not yet operational due to delays Purdy attributed to “the sheer scope and technical complexity of its software.”
OCX has become emblematic of broader Pentagon struggles with large-scale software development, where ambitious requirements often collide with the realities of coding, testing and integrating complex systems.
Similar challenges have bedeviled the Advanced Tracking and Launch Analysis System, or ATLAS, a space domain awareness platform that aims to replace decades-old technology. ATLAS has earned the distinction of being labeled one of the Space Force’s most troubled programs due to persistent technical, integration and schedule challenges.
Purdy said there is light at the end of the tunnel, telling lawmakers that “since we divided ATLAS into more manageable deliverables, the program has made significant progress and is on schedule to start operating in September 2025.” On OCX, he said the Space Force expects the first operational version of the system to be ready in September.
Launch dependency concerns
The Space Force’s procurement challenges are also visible in its struggle to maintain reliable access to space. Despite deliberate efforts to diversify launch providers, the service now finds itself heavily dependent on SpaceX, even though it awarded 60% of missions under a major 2020 contract to United Launch Alliance.
The problem lies with ULA’s new Vulcan rocket, which has yet to launch a national security satellite. “The ULA Vulcan program has performed unsatisfactorily this past year,” Purdy said bluntly in his congressional testimony. “Major issues with the Vulcan have overshadowed its successful certification resulting in delays to the launch of four national security missions.”
This illustrates a key challenge in defense acquisition: the tension between maintaining competition and ensuring mission success. The Space Force deliberately sought to avoid over-dependence on any single launch provider, but ULA’s struggles have forced exactly that outcome. The first National Security Space Launch mission using Vulcan is now targeted for July, but additional delays could further concentrate launch dependency on SpaceX.
Racing against time
These procurement struggles occur against the backdrop of what defense officials describe as an accelerating space race with China. Beijing’s rapid development of anti-satellite weapons, space-based surveillance systems and other military space capabilities has compressed the timeline for American responses.
Maj. Gen. Steve Butow, military deputy at the Defense Innovation Unit, captured the urgency during recent remarks at the Hill & Valley forum on Capitol Hill. The rate of technological change today is “off the charts,” he said, “while the procurement process that we use in government does not factor agility at all. It takes decades sometimes to build and buy things, and by the time you field them, they’re obsolete, and then you spend more money to try to make them relevant.”
Emil Michael, a former tech executive sworn in May 20 as undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, said the private sector should bear “more responsibility for the risks of their own failure.” But he also said DoD “needs to foster a more robust and competitive defense industrial base by providing more realistic requirements, inviting smaller and innovative companies with less burdensome processes and becoming more agile in how and when we grant contracts.”
It will be a long fight.
This article first appeared in the June 2025 issue of SpaceNews Magazine.