Colonel Rayermann was raised in Southern California and started his professional life as an employee of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In 1981, he graduated from UCLA and its ROTC program with a BS degree in physics and a commission as a 2nd Lt. in the United States Army Signal Corps. As a company grade officer, he served as an assistant project manager at Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, then as a planning officer with the 7th Signal Brigade and as the Commander of A Co, 44th Signal Battalion, which used the TRI-TAC communications system he helped to develop. He deployed to Northern Iraq as part of Operation Provide Comfort.

Colonel Rayermann’s field grade assignments have included Executive Officer and Commander, 1st Satellite Control Battalion, manager of all logistics support throughout the former Soviet Union for the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which serves to eliminate, neutralize, or safeguard elements of what was the Soviet strategic arsenal, and as Chief of Space Operations at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). In 1985, Colonel Rayermann served as a member of the Army Space Initiatives Study. He made space support relevant to the warfighter during his assignments with the 7th Signal Brigade, the 44th Signal Battalion, the 1st Satellite Control (SATCON) Battalion and with DISA. In 1999, he became one of the initial officers designated as a Space Operations expert (Functional Area 40) within the U.S. Army.

His assignments as a Space Operations Officer have been as the G3 of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command (USA SMDC/ARSTRAT) and as the Chief of the Space and Missile Defense Division in the Department of the Army G-3/5/7. During 2006, he participated as a member of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy-chartered Future Land Imaging Interagency Work Group (FLI IWG) which developed a plan for a U.S. Land Imaging Program to provide a strategy to achieve a continuous, routine U.S. operational space-based land imaging data collection capability. Colonel Rayermann currently serves as the Director of the Comm-FIO office within the National Security Space Office (NSSO).

MSM
Colonel Rayermann, as the Director of the Communications Functional Integration Office with the NSSO, would you please describe your duties? Also, you became one of the first Space Operations Experts within the U.S. Army, a new career path in 1999 — what did this assignment entail?

Colonel Rayermann
Hartley, thank you very much for this opportunity to address your questions. My principle duty as the Director, Communications Functional Integration Office (Comm-FIO) at the (NSSO) is to lead the team responsible for the stewardship of the Transformational Communications Architecture, or TCA. The TCA was initially developed in 2003–2004 to describe the vision for a future set of satellite communications capabilities that would both be an element of the Department of Defense’s Global Information Grid (GIG) and an element of the communications capabilities supporting portions of the U.S intelligence community and Federal civil agencies, such as NASA and NOAA. As the Director, Comm-FIO, I lead the team, which is charged to maintain and evolve the TCA to consistently — on a time cycle of roughly every two years — ensure that it provides a reasonable, affordable projection of the necessary evolution of the SATCOM capabilities available to U.S. warfighters, necessary to meet a realistic projection of future communications needs.

When I became one of the first Army officers designated as a Functional Area 40 (FA 40)—Space Operations Officer, I was already assigned to the Space Operations portion of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). My designation as a Space Operations Officer did not change the details or responsibilities entailed with my then-current assignment; rather, it recognized my years of experience in the space arena and ratified the roles and responsibilities to which I was already assigned in the Space Operations elements of DISA.
MSM
How important is space support to today’s warfighter in countering ever-evolving threats, all the while ensuring joint interdependence, and what various roles does it play in ensuring force success?

Colonel Rayermann
Space support has become a very beneficial tool in the warfighter’s modern quiver that contains a broad range of capabilities. Space systems provide a number of capabilities, which are taken together and offer exceptional flexibility and global capability. It is important to recognize that, in spite of the advantages offered by space systems, U.S. forces continue to train to be prepared to operate should these capabilities be unavailable for any particular operational scenario. Having said this, these same capabilities have contributed to the growth of Jointness in the means by which the U.S. military conducts and plans to execute its various assigned missions and taskings. reconnaissance, weather, timing, navigation, terrain navigability, force protection and communications are mission areas where space makes substantial contributions.


MSM
I believe you initiated your space career as a high school student with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. How did this lead to your command officer career in the U.S. Army? Isn’t the Army path somewhat unusual for someone who wishes a career in the satellite environs?

Colonel Rayermann
Hartley, you are correct... I first had the opportunity to pursue my interest in space technology and exploitation while I was in high school through a youth program sponsored by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and then as an employee of JPL itself. This opportunity did not specifically lead to my career in the Army; I had always had an interest in becoming an officer in the U.S. military, following the example of my father and many of my other ancestors.

However, we should note the important pioneering role that the Army filled in the 1950s in developing the nascent capabilities which led to the American space program and became a part of NASA as the decade of the 1960s began. It was an Army-developed booster that lofted the JPL-designed and built satellite, Explorer I, which became America’s first successful satellite at the end of January 1958. While the Army may be a somewhat unusual path for someone who is interested in the development and application of space capabilities, it is filled with precedent. Roughly a dozen Army astronauts have now flown in space as part of the Space Shuttle, MIR, and International Space Station programs.

MSM
Would you describe the TRI-TAC communications system and how it assisted with the Kurds in Northern Iraq in 1991? What is today’s equivalent to TRI-TAC and what is that system designed to accomplish?

Colonel Rayermann
The TRI-TAC communications system was a multi-service set of communications capabilities which brought the first generation of interoperable digital communications to the Army and the Air Force during the 1980s. It provided the primary, high capacity (for that time) communications support to U.S. forces who executed Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm as well as Operation Provide Comfort via U.S. forces that provided security assistance to the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

The current equivalent to TRI-TAC in the U.S. Army is the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) program, which has already begun to field capabilities to Army soldiers and will continue to do so through a series of phased improvements over the next decade. WIN-T is designed to be the Army’s battlefield/tactical portion, or tactical contribution, to the overall GIG. WIN-T is intended to provide a broader range of communications services than the TRI-TAC program was designed to do — today, for example, we have capabilities for the use of IP as a means of transport and video support to theaters of operation that were simply not available to deployed military forces when the TRI-TAC program requirements were defined in the mid-1970s.

MSM
You were the G3 of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, Army Forces Strategic Command, as well as the Chief of the Space and Missile Defense Division in the G3-/5/7. Could you tell us about your experiences in that role?

Colonel Rayermann
These positions were quite distinct. As the G-3 of USASMDC/ARSTRAT, I was basically the Chief Operating Officer for that Command with the responsibility of helping the Commanding General orchestrate activities. Those activities included research and development, the leadership and readiness of the Command’s forces in its core mission areas of missile defense and space, as well as the Command’s, then new role as the Army Component Command to the new U.S. Strategic Command of presenting Army forces to USSTRATCOM in its mission areas. Those areas covered Global Command and Control; Space; Global Ballistic Missile Defense; Global Communications; Global Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance; Information Operations; Global Strike; and Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction. This role was challenging and exceptionally professionally rewarding. Personally, this was a job that was exciting and involved me in every area of significant personal and professional interests I have.

On the other hand, as the Chief of the HQDA G-3/5/7 Space and Missile Defense Division, I was responsible for representing the G-3/5/7 (or “chief operating officer”) of the Army in space and missile defense matters; for working collaboratively with a broad range of stakeholders from across the Army to develop, gain approval, and articulate Army positions pertaining to the development, delivery, and doctrinal use of space capabilities; for recommending to the G-3/5/7 chain of command sound approaches through which the Army could explain and advocate for the missile defense and space capabilities it needs; and for coordinating with other stakeholders across the National Security Space community to help achieve a balanced, affordable plan which validated that the Army’s needs for space capabilities could be met.

MSM
How did you become a member of the Army Space Initiatives Study? What was the goal and was it successful?

Colonel Rayermann
The Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Maxwell Thurman, recognized that the activation of Air Force Space Command and the formation of U.S. Space Command signaled a clear maturation of U.S. space capabilities in support of the U.S. military. He realized that the Army should consider — or at least evaluate — what its future role with regard to space capabilities should be. General Thurman directed the Army’s Personnel Command to identify 30 officers who knew something about space to be formed as the Army Space Initiatives Study. By coincidence, I had submitted my résumé at that time as part of a request that the Army identify me with the Space Activities Additional Skill Identifier (ASI), 3Y. Apparently, my experience at JPL and my availability made me an appropriate candidate to be one of the “ASIS 30.” The goal of ASIS was to identify whether the Army should engage more actively in space matters and activities; if so, how and what programs and goals should the Army set for itself forecasting out about 25 years into the future. We fulfilled this goal, which permits me to assert that the ASIS was successful. Perhaps more appropriately, 24 years later, the crucible of history indicates that our work in ASIS turned out to be fairly accurate in about 30 percent of our prognostications — some amazingly so, while clearly “off the mark” in about 30 percent of our forecasts; and partially close while being partially off the mark in the remaining 40 percent. Overall, I believe upon reviewing our forecasts and the accuracy over time of similar efforts, a most respectable result.

MSM
In 2006, you were a member of the Future Land Imaging Interagency Work Group, a White House Office of Science and Technology department, which developed A Plan For a U.S. Land Imaging Program. Could you define the program and its goals? Were they successful?

Colonel Rayermann
I appreciate this question, Hartley. My opportunity to participate in the FLI IWG to help represent and articulate Army and DoD perspectives with regard to the sustainment of LANDSAT-like capabilities came about somewhat accidentally; however, it was a tremendous experience and I remain humbled, as well as honored, to have been able to participate in it. I’ve never seen such a diverse group of individuals work as collegially and unselfishly as the team which comprised the FLI IWG did.

The goal of the FLI IWG was to craft a recommendation for how the U.S. could programmatically maintain a consistent, sustainable, affordable, and predictable program for mid-resolution imaging of the Earth’s surface for the purposes of assured, sustained environmental monitoring. I believe our final recommendation achieved this goal and implementation of the overall approach recommended by the FLI IWG has begun.


MSM
GIG relies heavily upon SATCOM architectures... what technologies do you see as being primarily responsible for driving warfighter support over the next few years? How well are commercial companies addressing the needs of the military? Plus, sometimes the procurement processes for MILSATCOM equipment seems unending... are there any plans afoot to streamline this process?

Colonel Rayermann
The GIG relies on a number of differing technologies or phenomenologies. Ultimately, this is a strength — diversity yields robustness and adaptability. I believe that over the next four to five years, the increasing use of IP (as through the Joint IP Modem) and the introduction of Dynamic Bandwidth ReAllocation (“DBRA” pronounced “Debra”) will permit us to make more efficient use of the finite bandwidth resources available and will yield substantial improvements in our ability to provide affordable, essential communications throughput in support of our warfighters.

I believe commercial firms, manufacturers of spacecraft/space hardware and owner-operators of space systems, are addressing the needs of the military very effectively, responsively and with innovation. Quite frankly, industry is able to adapt, respond, and innovate, in most cases, more rapidly than the government. There are many reasons for this — some are good and some at least a bit frustrating; the key point is that appropriate awareness of industry capabilities coupled with appropriate, transparent business dealings with industry can foster opportunities for government individuals to incorporate commercial solutions as a part of their total tool set.

The procurement processes for MILSATCOM are not unique; they are governed by the same guidelines as all federal procurements and informed by the unusual challenges which space systems must address that terrestrial systems do not face. The NSSO has no direct influence regarding the DoD’s acquisition processes; however, we can certainly advocate for the adoption of modifications or exceptions that make sense.

Overall, though, based on my own 20 years or so of experience with government acquisitions, I personally agree with Mr. Tom Young, Dr. Ron Sega, Lieutenant General Mike Hammel and other recognized senior acquisition professionals who have worked to restore DoD, and especially military space acquisitions to a firmer footing. These individuals have pointed out that we need to return to fundamental, basic principles in how we, in DoD, structure procurements; inculcate sound systems engineering into all of our developments and acquisitions; hold requirements to a firm baseline and allocate funds for acquisition efforts in total sums which cover the full costs. These costs must be rigorously estimated to be properly commensurate with the scope of the acquisition effort and the risk we are willing to accept in not achieving the performance and schedule set for the program.


MSM
Information access on the move is so important to ensure boots on the ground aren’t simply slogging through more and more fog of war. Do you see nanotechnologies playing an important role in such applications in the future?

Colonel Rayermann
This is an interesting question, Hartley. I think it’s reasonable to assess that to the degree we can miniaturize systems and reduce the power that is required for their operation, the more our mobile, tactical forces (especially individual Army and Marine combat troops) will be able to take advantage of them. This applies to SATCOM terminals — especially likely the future developments are in handheld communications terminals. Nanotechnologies offer some interesting possibilities in reducing the Size, Weight and Power [consumed/required] (a.k.a., “SWAP”) but I am not able to predict how quickly the benefits of nanotechnologies may be applied to battlefield communications and information access systems.

MSM
I would imagine there must be a great need for interagency cooperation between all branches of the services in regard to MILSATCOM projects. Do you find yourself at the NSSO working to ensure the communication links between the various services remain in place and working? What are some of the major “challenges” you need to confront to bring projects to fruition (other than Congressional budget hearings!).

Colonel Rayermann
Hartley, you’ve hit upon an area which is important, upon which we continually focus, and in which we can always improve. Communication and cooperation across all elements of the National Security Space community — Federal agencies, Congressional committees and industry — is essential. At the NSSO, one of our key roles is to foster and facilitate improving collaboration across all elements of the National Security Space community. Overall, we find that there is a tremendous spirit of cooperation within this community. However, even so, there are occasions where different members of the community have divergent needs and/or perspectives; there are also situations where miscommunications and misperceptions occur. Working to help the National Security Space stakeholders balance legitimately divergent needs, and ensure we are all communicating in a common way with uniform understanding, are two of the significant, recurring challenges we work to overcome.

MSM
You have a Master’s Degree in Computer Resources and Information Management, as well as in Strategic Studies. What coursework would be recommended for students today who wish to become involved in the space environs? And how can we encourage our youth to become involved in this most crucial of sciences, rather than other, less relevant pathways?

Colonel Rayermann
This is an area of intense interest to the NSSO as well as to many senior leaders throughout our government and industry. I personally share their interest, having benefitted from some tremendous opportunities to learn and operate in the aerospace-space sciences fields when I was in my youth. In terms of course work, one always benefits from a firm foundation and developing a comfort with advanced mathematics — they will always serve you well — but never forget the basics of arithmetic. Beyond that, physics, applied physics, astrophysics, engineering, mechanical, applied and aerospace, chemistry, geology, and astronomy all come to mind. There are, of course, others. In most cases, people will benefit from having a firm technical foundation if they are going to work in the aerospace-space sciences arena.

I’m not sure that I would categorize all of the other potential career alternatives to one in aerospace and the space sciences as less relevant; there are very important fields of endeavor that have significant relevance to our society and our nation. However, we certainly would like to see far more young people becoming excited about and entering aerospace and the space sciences. This is a tough challenge. Certainly, I think there is a place for providing high school and college age young people with opportunities —such as I had — to work in a professional setting in these fields, to learn the joy and rewards of discovery; of building something new and unique; to build their assurance that they too have the innate intelligence and can develop the skills to become successful “rocket scientists,” astronauts, or other space professionals.

A clear government commitment can help this process, but one can also argue that we have had a clear, robustly funded commitment to aerospace and the space sciences for decades, the NASA and military space budgets taken together are a significant investment. Perhaps we should strive to more clearly convey just how important aerospace, space sciences and science in general have become to our nation and to any society during the dawning of the Third Millennium. It seems as though this should be obvious to all, and yet somehow we are not “closing the deal” with an appropriate percentage of our young people.
One approach may well be to have more frequent, less costly programs so that an individual can envision being involved in at least four or five programs during the course of a professional career. Today, people who began working on the space shuttle program in 1969 or 1970 can retire having only worked on the shuttle program after a career of 38 to 40 or so years. This is an unusual case, but it is illustrative. In the decade of the 1960s, people worked on three generations of manned spacecraft in one 10-year period: there were constantly new challenges and new opportunities. Having proven your mettle and gained experience on one program, you could move on to another in a new capacity building upon your previous experience.

We’ll probably never return to the pace of 1960s when it comes to the advent of new programs, capabilities and challenges. But perhaps if we adjust our paradigm a bit, we can more clearly craft distinct new challenges and opportunities to be available every five to 10 or so years, and this doesn’t have to be exclusively with manned space, with spacecraft, with launch vehicles or with scientific sensors — maybe we achieve this kind of opportunity set by a prudent mixing across the full scope of the aerospace and space sciences fields.

MSM
What are the most concerning challenges for the U.S. Army and the Department of Defense in both tactical and strategic levels, and what policies will ensure our nation remains the leader in warfighter superiority? Are shrinking budgets for the military going to affect the long-term viability of our services?

Colonel Rayermann
I am not in a position in which I can authoritatively address this set of questions as thoroughly as you would prefer. Fundamentally, the Army, the other services, and the DoD remain committed to developing, training and equipping the most capable military which can affordably meet the guidance provided to our military by our nation’s leaders in the Executive and Legislative Branches. We continually work to understand what current and potential future threats to U.S. citizens and our nation are, and to properly prepare ourselves to deter and, if necessary, defeat them. We work to do so in ways that both communicate and are consistent with our ethical values as a people.

I believe if one examines U.S. history, one will find that there has been an amazing degree of consistency from our political leadership in guiding, prompting and supporting appropriate policies, guidance and military preparations to preserve our Nation and protect American citizens. I don’t foresee this changing but I also do not have the prescience to describe what the policies for the future should be. The affordability of the activities of the Federal Government, although not explicitly addressed in the U.S. Constitution, has always been a responsibility of our Executive and Legislative Branch leaders. It is fundamental. A successful, robust, vibrant economy is one of the cornerstones of our success and strength as a nation. We cannot have military security without economic security.

Due to a variety of factors — more today than a year ago — it seems almost certain that the amount of National Treasury (taxes) that are directed towards the U.S. military will decrease over the next few years. The key here is for the National Security community in our nation to honestly and incisively assess the potential threats to the U.S. and to craft force structures that are innovative coupled with systems and doctrines to deter and, if necessary, to defeat those threats. We must also support our nation’s leaders in assessing how to prudently prepare our military consistent with these constructs in a manner that our nation can afford as it also expends our citizens’ tax dollars to meet the many other challenges and opportunities before us.

MSM
Thank you, Colonel. Please know how much we appreciate your insight. Best of success to you...