- [Nate] Welcome everyone my name is Nate Dailey.
I'm a principal enterprise architect with MITRE.
I'm going to present today on: A Global Framework
for Cross-policy/techno Architecture
and Automated Anomalous Apace-behavior Detection.
As this background slide states,
many of the issues that face us today
are a result of uncoordinated presence
in the use of space by nations
and private enterprises.
Uncoordinated, what I mean,
is by design the organizations
that are responsible for different components
and pieces of the space domain,
grew without intentional design 50 years ago.
And so in short, regulatory mechanisms
and administrative mechanisms
that were originally designed
to handle individual components
of the space domain
have grown to be self constraining
and in some cases defeating
cause they just weren't designed
to handle the challenges
that we face now.
Today, the government accountability office
found a few years ago,
I think in 2008,
their report fragmentation overlapping
and duplicative regulatory mechanisms.
For example, FAA has launch authority.
The Federal Communications Commission
has satellite operations licensure requirements
that were placed in their control
because of spectrum management.
But NOAA also has operations licensure requirements
based on equipment on the satellite,
whether you have remote sensing or not.
And then of course
we have the Office of Space Commerce now
that is trying to catch up
with a very rapid past decade of commercial evolution.
At the same time,
the International Landscape
presents us with a challenge.
Now our US National Space Strategy
has a peace through strength vision
but I'm also going
to talk a little bit about balancing
that peace through strength with peace.
Let's not forget about the peace part.
So peace through strength and friendship.
So I'm Amicitia Pax,
literally the motto of the US diplomatic core.
And you'll see that
on a lot of diplomatic invitations, for example.
So there's this balance
between peace through strength
and peace through friendship
that I think is lacking
in the discourse today.
And no one ever addressed that a little bit
One way to determine
where we want a war in spaces
to not have had one in the first place.
And so there is not a peace
through strength or priests
or friendship component.
Also coupled that could present a problem.
And simply the fact
that we were experiencing these self constraining
and defeating constraints
within our administrative mechanisms, it's hard.
It presents a problem for US
at an aggregate level.
Some people have said that we feel
like the US is flailing
with this particular problem.
So a global framework
for cross policy,
technical architecture couples,
the policy world,
and the technology world.
It literally digitizes a space policies
in ways that we can extract
artifacts for vocabularies,
for standards and specifications those
so that our architecture
and that our policies are up to date
with the current trend and current evolution
of technology by creating this funnel
this way to continually refresh policy
with current vocabulary
and vocabulary that spans across multiple domains,
public, private, academic, and international.
So the landscape
of normative behaviors among States
and independent actors alike are just as important
as the astrodynamics risks associated with space,
traffic management and orbital debris.
And so a global framework
and architecture is a way
that we can move forward
to connect policy world
with the technology
where we are accustomed
to developing architectures
that are based in requirements.
But before I get there,
let me just mention
that the agreement for cooperation
is necessary too
and so when it comes to agreements,
transparency that leads to confidence.
Building measures that leads to trust
are very important.
And so a definitive understanding
of what the vocabulary is,
is fundamental, not just for any architectural
for any international agreements as well.
So enterprise architectures
and reference architectures
are literally strategy
plus business plus technology
that are typically based
in mission requirements
that may based around mission requirements.
But for a socio technological architecture,
mission requirements are a little bit different.
Here, we calculate the formula
for this type of architecture
is technology plus vocabulary plus policy.
And because it's socio technological,
it's cross-cutting,
it is better suited for linking innovation
and social and environmental
impacts driven transformations.
The traditional regime
for mission-driven innovation is great
for tracking requirements
but we find ourselves
now needing a new paradigm
for bringing to fruition
things like sustainable development goals
and the 21 long-term sustainability
guidelines for space
that were based in work
that was done around the 2011, 2012 timeframe
by the United Nations Group
of Government Experts on transparency
and confidence building measures for outer space.
Those are sorts of impacts
that we would want to drive to,
to help balance a peace through strength
and peace through friendship approach.
So here's a diagram
of what this sort of looks like.
How technology informs vocabulary
vis-a-vis artifacts
like data dictionaries and lexicon
and how data dictionary
is then informed policy
and policy formulation methodologies
and those policies then drive.
If we do this right,
the types of good normative behaviors
in the landscape of space activities
that we want to see
and mitigates the bad normative
sorts of behaviors
that could evolve.
For example, ASAP testing.
Moving on,
I mentioned agreements earlier in the briefing.
So linking to a blockchain system
that enables space traffic awareness,
is one way to,
with immutability lockdown a state
or a change in state
that allows for transparency
that then can lead
to competence building measures and trust.
What makes this really interesting,
is that if we have these smart treaties, for example
what makes that particularly attractive
is that on the one hand,
a blockchain sort of awareness system
can validate with immutability,
space objects as a space situation awareness
or space traffic management support system.
And on the other hand,
a codified global framework
together with the blockchain awareness system,
allows us for comparing that SSA
and STM data in space
with these codified smart treaties.
And in a sense creates a system
for automated discovery
of anomalous behavior
and smart treaty compliance
in international affairs
because the desired behavior
has been digitized
and then coupled
within this architecture.
So how do you make that happen?
So the methodology
that I have been undertaking
in doing that is to group,
to conduct a policy literature review
that spans the peaceful
use of outer space,
sorts of policies and treaties,
as well as military doctrine
to come up
to combine both military space, power and nationals
at an aggregate level.
And then to create a taxonomy
and a policy map
that I can then use
to create this
to identify these themes
to develop a logic model.
And then within that logic model,
if we begin with the end in mind,
the designer impacts,
we can backtrack
to the sorts of activities
that have the deliverable outputs
that have the outcomes
that then drive to those impacts.
Important part thing about that.
And I'll get to that in a moment,
is that in activity model
is literally where the rubber
meets the road for architectures.
So some of the documents
that I have been looking
at more recently are listed here
on this particular slide
and then just for illustrative purposes,
here's what that taxonomy Paul like.
And you can see a lot of arrows pointing
to the third column from the right
which is the thematic column
that I've been able
to derive from the objectives
and goals of all of these different policies.
And so at a very high level
and a grand strategy sorts of level,
there are these seven sorts of impacts.
Grand strategy level impacts
that have identified
to strive towards words
are balanced across military space, power
and the aggregate level of national space power.
Sharing a vision for space utilization
and exploration and building resilient secure
and ready links for cooperation.
Number two, for example,
crafting new mechanisms
for close cooperation
that crosses governments universities
and industry impact number six.
And so in the end,
which is the next slide,
(laughing)
first let me get to the activity.
So these are the activities
that then if you backtrack
from those impacts
would support those impacts.
And this is important
because now we can craft an OV-5 architecture.
So an activity model or a process model,
what's important about that,
is coupled with a good data architecture.
We can also create a data model
from that vocabulary.
So we now have the verbs
and we now have the nouns
codified in a form of an architecture
that describe in an architectural way
the sorts of activities
and the sorts of vocabularies
that are gonna be needed
to meet those desired impacts.
Put altogether, here are those activities
that lead to those outputs outcomes
and those particular impacts.
And so this is the methodology
that went behind this sort of study
that I'm currently conducting.
The next question is,
how do we organize
to make that happen?
Well, it's somewhat of a process
and it looks somewhat like this,
where you would tap resources or staff support
from various organizations
across the machinery of government
to participate in a team oriented
sort of organizational design
to carry out this process.
And it re acquires organizational liaison
across individual space varying
and space-related organizations,
compiling themes in developing messaging
and vocabulary architecting those into artifacts
for our comprehensive architecture
and then doing something with it.
So engaging internationally
multilateral multilateral forums
like the scientific
and science technology subcommittee
of the United Nations committee
for the peaceful use of outer space
or the subcommittee first phase law as well.
Here are those activities embedded within
that process that was on the previous slide.
And then the next question is how
can the US organize
to make that process happen
and to make those activities happen?
There are three typical sorts of ways
to create an organizational design.
One is a hierarchical
or bureaucratic that's traditional.
Now there is a matrix
but for this particular one,
what we have experienced
as I described in the first few slides,
is the run-around.
You got to go here.
You got to go there
to get certain licenses and approvals.
And that's what we traditionally call the run-around.
And so for that particular problem,
a one-stop shop
sort of team design is best oriented
to support processes
not only processes
but also life cycles in ways
that you can address problems
in one particular forum
or one particular organizational design more effectively.
And I think that this is what
we are looking at
as far as the need goes
for the US government.
Whether it is a integrated project team
or an inter-governmental IPT
or perhaps a US-based space commission,
for international constructive engagement.
That might look something like this,
where you have representatives
from space force, space command, air force,
other space faring organizations
that get together in this commission
or this inner inter-governmental IBT
to focus on aggregate level
national space power problems.
Thank you very much for your time today.
That concludes my briefing.
Thanks.