FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

NASA - 2630 - National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group - Statutory (Congress Created)

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	National Space Council Users’ Advisory Group	Agency Name	National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	2630
Original Establishment Date	12/6/2017	Committee Status	Chartered
Actual Termination Date		Committee URL	https://www.nasa.gov/usersadvisorygroup/
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	30
Terminated This FY	No	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	DFO/Executive Secretary
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix	Mr.
Current Charter Date	11/30/2023	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	James
Date Of Renewal Charter	11/30/2025	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name	J.
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Miller
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(202) 262-0929
Establishment Authority*	Statutory (Congress Created)	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	(202) 358-4297
Specific Establishment Authority*	NASA Authorization Act of 1991 (Public Law 101-611, Section 121), and Executive Order 14056 on National Space Council dated December 1, 2021.	Designated Federal Officer Email*	jj.miller@nasa.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	6/30/2017
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Scientific Technical Program Advisory Board

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	Not Applicable
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	The function of the UAG is to ensure that the interests of industry, non-Federal entities, and other persons involved in aeronautical and space activities are adequately represented by the National Space Council.
How is membership balanced?*	The UAG membership is composed of representatives of industry, other non-Federal entities, and other recognizable groups of persons involved in aeronautical and space activities, as well as Special Government Employees who may be appointed as subject matter experts.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	The UAG meets as frequently as needed, subject to the advance approval of the UAG Designated Federal Officer (DFO). The UAG meets two to three times each year. The UAG from time to time, but not less that once per year, meets with the National Space Council. Special meetings of the UAG may be required and supported as needed.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	The UAG is a unique body of nationally-recognized aerospace industry experts and leaders at the national level, recognized for their specific expertise. Combined together, the membership is a critical brain trust for the nation.
Why close or partially close meetings?	Not Applicable
Recommendation Remarks	The National Space Council Users' Advisory Group (UAG) is a FACA advisory committee chartered by NASA on December 6, 2017; the UAG charter was renewed by NASA on December 4, 2019, and again on December 3, 2021. NASA was requested by the White House to sponsor and manage the day-to-day operations of this committee. This committee was established pursuant to the NASA Authorization Act of 1991 (Public Law 101-611, Section 121), and Executive Order 14056 ("The National Space Council") signed by the President on December 1, 2021. As such, the UAG is a non-discretionary statutory Federal advisory committee, and has no termination date.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	Yes	Action Reorganize Priorities*	No
Outcome Trust In Government	Yes	Action Reallocate Resources	No
Outcome Major Policy Changes	Yes	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	Yes	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	No	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	No
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	Yes	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	Yes	Action Comment	FY24 UAG Update On December 1, 2023, a UAG virtual public meeting was held. This was the second UAG public meeting under the Biden-Harris Administration. The meeting was livestreamed & recorded. Key highlights included: (1) Opening remarks, “Strengthening International Engagement and Partnerships in Space,” by Ms. Valda M. Vikmanis Keller, Director, Office of Space Affairs, Bureau of Oceans and International; and (2) Findings and proposed recommendations from the chairs of the six subcommittees. The subcommittee briefings included a total of 30 proposed recommendations for deliberation. The presentations and deliberations are described in detail in the Meeting Minutes, which are available at the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/uag-2023-12-01-meeting-minutes-signed-v2.pdf?emrc=3e95cb On December 19, 2023, Gen Lyles (Chair) submitted a Memorandum to Mr. Chirag Parikh (Executive Secretary, National Space Council) with the thirty recommendations from the UAG.
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	No	Grants Review*	No
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	0
Outcome Comment	The new Administration and NASA worked together to process new member appointments and kick-off the first public meeting in February, 2023, following the Administration transition. Since then, administrative and fact-finding meetings have taken place to develop findings and recommendations, which were presented for deliberation and adoption at the December 1, 2023, UAG public meeting held virtually. These recommendations were submitted to the NSpC Executive Secretary on December 19, 2023.	Number Of Grants Recommended	0
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$0.00
Cost Savings Comment		Grants Review Comment	Not Applicable
Number Of Recommendations*	39	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	The UAG has deliberated and approved 39 key recommendations since it was established in 2019. The recommendations have been grouped into two parts. Part I lists the recommendations submitted to the NSpC Office by Admiral J. Ellis Jr (USN, ret.), the UAG Chair under the 2017-2021 Administration of President Trump. Part II lists the recommendations submitted to the NSpC Office by General Lester Lyles (USAF, ret.), UAG Chair under the 2022-2025 Administration of President Biden. Part I: Recommendations FY 19-21 The following nine recommendations were deliberated and approved by the UAG chaired by Adm J. Ellis Jr. (USN, ret.) and submitted to Dr. Scott Pace (Executive Secretary, National Space Council). Of these, five (55%) were fully implemented (55%) and three (33%) were partially implemented. 1) Some UAG members expressed concerns about the pace of progress in the Moon to Mars initiative, including: The vehicle design and program design do not seem sufficiently innovative; Innovative, creative people are involved, but that they may be are trapped in a system that does not appear to facilitate efficient progress; There may be an excessive number of overly large goals, and these should be subdivided and prioritized; and, The UAG should therefore persuade the administration and NASA to consider alternate approaches. (November 15, 2018) –-- Status: Fully implemented. Numerous fact-finding information exchanges with NASA/HEOMD (the Artemis lead managers) were conducted to understand the basic plans for the notional 2024 lunar architecture, the specific missions and visions supporting the lunar objectives, the risks associated with each element of the mission, and any broad trade spaces considered. The UAG also reviewed previous lunar architectures during the Apollo program to understand the differences and trades, as well as plans to ensure a sustainable presence on the lunar surface, as well as opportunities for reusability of key lunar architecture elements for the future objective of traveling to Mars. UAG reps also interacted with the NASA Administrator to get a strategic overview of NASA’s “Lunar to Mars” sustainability and reusability plans. The UAG reviewed NASA’s internal independent assessment of the Artemis program. The initial assessment of the 2024 Lunar Architecture determined that NASA has conducted a detailed, thorough review of options and trades required to return to the Moon as quickly as possible. The mission plans and elements of the architecture appear to be appropriate to achieve the Lunar objectives with sustainability and reusability factored in for future excursions from the lunar surface. However, a review of the Artemis Program Status Assessment (PSA) revealed concerns about the program organization and management structure. It also identified concerns about the schedule risks, particularly associated with the lunar Human Landing System (HLS) element of Artemis. 2) The UAG was asked to assess and to recommend options for the organizational structure of the U.S. Space Force (USSF), including a future Department of the Space Force. (April 8, 2019) –-- Status: Fully implemented. The National Security subcommittee of the UAG has had three classified information gathering and discussion sessions with DoD leadership, initially focused on the USSF, its creation, the plan for its implementation, milestones for implementation of that plan, and then efforts to develop concepts for organizing areas such as operations, personnel policy, and procurement initiatives. The UAG paper, “Efficient Space Procurement Codification for the DAF/USSF, Including Incremental Funding,” was delivered to the NSpC in September 2020. 3) The UAG subcommittee recommended that the UAG form a task force to act as a “red team” to assess the revised lunar exploration plan and develop potential alternatives. (April 8, 2019) –-- Status: Fully Implemented. See explanation under recommendation #1. 4) Recommendation #4: NASA should update their technology roadmap and brief the UAG in light of the Artemis and Moon and to Mars programs, provide a briefing to the UAG and, if necessary, fund a brief external review. (October 21, 2019). --- Status: Fully implemented. The NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) briefed its lunar technology roadmap to the UAG in January 2020. 5) The NSpC should direct the UAG to define the scope of a study to be conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration, reviewing U.S. regulatory jurisdiction and governance (domestic), with a goal of technology leadership across spectrum related technology sectors. The study should also address an assessment of the current U.S. governance model for spectrum v. alignment with multiple national technological leadership and capabilities priorities. (October 21, 2019) --- Status: not implemented. 6) The NSpC should direct the UAG to develop a white paper, outlining and scoping a study of the means to establish and maintain a U.S. Strategic Space Propellant Reserve modeled on the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). (October 21, 2019) --- Status: Fully implemented. The UAG white paper, “Assessing the Utility of a U.S. Strategic In-Space Propellant Reserve: Economic Development in Low Earth Orbit and Cislunar1 Space,” was delivered to the NSpC in September 2020. 7) The NSpC should write a Space Policy Directive (SPD) concerning Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education in the U.S. with the intent to prepare the future space industry workforce. (October 21, 2019) --- Status: Partially implemented. The White House began work on a Space Policy Directive (SPD) that will implement the recommendations regarding STEM. 8) The DoD, DOC, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) should work to jointly develop standards for space data protection and security plans, space data verification, and space data uncertainty quantification. (July 30, 2020) --- Status: Partially implemented. A follow-on White Paper, “Recommendations on Trust and Interoperability in Space Situational Awareness Data,” was submitted to the NSpC in September 2020. 9) The Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of Commerce (DOC) should work to create an interoperable approach on multi-sourced space data modeling, data sharing, and curation architectures. Both departments should study lessons learned and fund studies and research around technical solutions and processes that allow incorporation of properly vetted international and commercial data into the space object catalog for military, civil and commercial uses. (July 30, 2020) --- Status: Partially implemented. See explanation under recommendation #8. Part II: Recommendations FY20-24 On December 19, 2023, Gen Lyles (Chair) submitted a Memorandum to Mr. Chirag Parikh (Executive Secretary, National Space Council) with the thirty recommendations from the UAG. 1) International collaboration with both allies and adversaries is key to national security space. Therefore, the UAG recommends closing the gaps between U.S. declaratory policy on international security space policy and actual implementation. 2) Ensure National Security considerations and objectives are addressed in the “National Cislunar Science and Technology Strategy” deliberations. 3) In support of the STEM eco-system model, the identified areas of Dept. of Defense (DoD) and Defense Industrial Base (DIB) collaboration should be broadened by leveraging the regional STEM / workforce development eco-system efforts. 4) DoD and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) leadership should include STEM Education, Diversity, and Inclusion as part of personnel incentives for time commitments. 5) Initiate interagency discussion to potential refinement of/addition to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFAR) language about Small Business, and diversity of supplier base as part of DIB. 6) DoD and ODNI should initiate discussion on personnel clearances for students and young professionals to establish guidelines and programs to increase awareness about and start processes for granting clearances. 7) Artemis and International Collaboration: NASA should continue international engagements to meet Artemis exploration objectives and communicate guidance regarding scope intended to be met by U.S. industry and opportunities for international partners. 8) Artemis and Industry Engagement: NASA should accelerate the update of this framework with the full, transparent integration of industry into the process. 9) Sustained Lunar Presence: The U.S. must maintain dissimilar redundancy of critical Artemis capabilities to establish a steady and predictable mission cadence. 10) Artemis Plan Coordination: The NSpC must lead development of a comprehensive plan across the whole-of-government, international partners, and commercial industry to identify specific areas where coordination of purpose and action can be improved. 11) Artemis Commercial Services: The commitment to the Artemis program must continue; as part of that, NASA must continue to identify and support investments in the commercial services and capabilities they need for a sustainable cislunar presence where NASA is one customer of many. 12) U.S. Civil Space Initiatives: The U.S. should continue to maintain its military space activities separate from civil space activities to foster trust in international relationships and maintain clean interfaces. 13) Talent Capture: The NSpC should lead the coordination of relevant government agencies and industry to develop and implement a national strategy identifying current and future technical personnel needs within the federal government and immediately closing the workforce gaps that currently exist. Strategy must highlight specific bottlenecks to timely hiring and onboarding, identify specific expedited hiring authority that already exists across the federal government, and evaluate opportunities to leverage the extant talent pool residing within technical government agencies and industry. 14) Update and Release new STEM Strategic Vision to include Space: NSpC member agencies should seek Congressional approval to update and release another five-year U.S. STEM Strategic Vision that includes sections on space-related topics with specific goals, priorities, partnerships, and measurements for a space literate American society. This effort should include the U.S. Space Force (USSF), and other agency members of the NSpC. 15) Expand Space Economic Sector Pilot Programs: Engage with industry members (could begin with UAG representatives), state and local government and trade organizations to understand and forecast workforce and professional requirements in terms of expertise and geography. Use this data to engage with the Departments of Commerce, Labor, and Education to prioritize future eco-system development beyond the three pilot programs. 16) Update U.S. Government (USG) contractual language about diversity within the Defense Industrial Base: Initiate interagency discussion to potential refinement of/addition to FAR/DFAR language about Small Business, and diversity of supplier base as part of DIB. Possible outcomes could be a FAR and FAR equivalent update, an Executive Order, or a National Defense Education Act -like framework. 17) Increase the pipeline of cleared personnel for national security space community: DoD and ODNI should initiate discussion on personnel clearances for students and young professionals to establish guidelines and program to increase awareness about; and start processes for granting clearances. Engage with DoD, ODNI, Dept of Labor to establish forecast for cleared workforce needs and create program whereby USG initiates clearances for students in feeder programs. 18) Talent Capture: To address ongoing personnel shortage, the NSpC should: (1) Lead coordination with the Department. of Commerce (DOC), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), NASA, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and industry to identify future technical personnel needs as well as highlight specific bottlenecks to timely and efficient hiring and onboarding; (2) encourage agencies tasked with regulating the commercial space industry (e.g., FAA, FCC, etc.) to maximize the use of existing authorized expedited hiring authorities; and (3) evaluate opportunities to leverage the talent pool residing within technical government agencies (e.g., NASA, DoD, etc.) and industry to create and establish opportunities for members of those workforces to transition, temporarily or permanently, to regulatory agencies to accelerate license and permit reviews and ensure regulatory frameworks are appropriately designed. 19) Earth Information and Action Lead (EIAL): Establish an over-arching leadership role within the National Security Council to assess, prioritize, and guide the Nation’s multi-agency EO effort along with consideration of private sector capabilities for the purpose of accelerating and improving environmental information and action. 20) Engagement with the private sector: (1) USG should work to streamline applications of EO for societal benefit; (2) EIAL should leverage existing authorities and appropriations to create partnerships that enable public, nonprofit, and commercial applications of EO for climate action & societal benefit. 21) Modernize data systems: The Administration should work across USG agencies and missions (NASA, NOAA, U.S. Geological Survey [USGS], DoD, Intelligence Community) to standardize and require better data architectures, standards, and interoperability for broader use and more equitable access within the USG, industry, and user communities. The process should also identify areas where EO applications can digitize workflows and incorporate advanced artificial intelligence (AI) or machine learning methods. 22) Space data ethics: The National Academies should convene a group to develop a framework for space data ethics, as distinct from existing data ethics. 23) Space Sustainability National Policy: A national strategy should be developed by the White House for the mission of space sustainability. This strategy, with the corresponding allocation of resources to implement it, should lay out clearly the responsibilities of each of the above-mentioned USG agencies for space sustainability. This goes beyond Space Policy Directive (SPD)-3. 24) Take actions to build owner/operator confidence in the DOC systems: (1) A clear goal of the Traffic Coordination System for Space (TraCSS) must be to reduce the uncertainty associated with predictions of collisions to the point where operators can trust them enough to take maneuver decisions with confidence; (2) operators should voluntarily provide their own tracking data on their systems to the DOC, this should include their best estimate of the data quality; (3) as TraCSS develops, it must not get into vendor lock with tools. 25) Develop the technical systems to remove space debris by the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD): To cross the “technology acceptance valley of death”, a USG agency must be directed to take the technology development from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 2 or 3 to TRL 8 and then share the knowledge with commercial industry for implementation. 26) Develop an international coordination mechanism for Space Traffic Coordination: (1) Given the danger of catastrophic events, the Department of State should be directed to establish an international coordination mechanism such as the International Committee on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (ICG) as soon as feasible; (2) start with active coordination with Europe and Japan. There is a high need to share and low ability to trust. The USG speaking with a cohesive voice will make a difference. 27) Adopt best practices around finding systems, removing unnecessary systems, and maneuvering systems: (1) Satellite performance will be improved if all satellites have Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)-based on-board orbit and trajectory determination, and then share predictive ephemerides data to space situational awareness stakeholders (i.e., other operators) as well as TraCSS; (2) launch upper stages should always be deorbited; (3) the FCC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and FAA should mandate that U.S.-licensed spacecraft can conduct effective collision avoidance, through maneuverability or other means, and these spacecraft should incorporate tracking capabilities such as a "transponder, reflect or other identification" to enable effective tracking as part of approval for launch within the U.S.; (4) all satellite manufacturers would be asked to consider design choices that would facilitate tracking in the event they lost power; and (5) all passive satellites must be highly trackable with design choices that allow for this. 28) Space Sustainability: (1) Require participation in civil space situational awareness and future civil space traffic coordination services; (2) encourage ability for spacecraft to be uniquely identified and reliably tracked from the ground once deployed; (3) recommendations for Office of Space Commerce (OSC) TraCSS program training and expertise; (4) five-year end of life requirement; (5) maneuverability requirement; (6) limitation of U.S. Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) waivers; (7) determination on responsibility for orbital debris remediation; (8) support for orbital debris remediation technology development; (9) development of international best practices and norms; (10) increase international transparency of debris mitigation and space safety; and (11) assess spectrum needs for space sustainability operations. 29) Mission Authorization and Supervision: Include the following in the framework for authorizing and supervising novel space activities: (1) public review and comment; (2) tailored approach; (3) presumption of authorization; (4) strict timeline; (5) transparency; (6) technical support approach; (7) information requirements; (8) mission-level authorization; (9) protect proprietary information; (10) continued validity of existing and pending authorizations; (11) supervision conducted via self-certification; and (12) managed by a single agency. 30) Space Supply Chain: (1) The FY 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) directed DoD to undertake a study exploring how current policies and requirements create a barrier to the commercial sector’s willingness to engage in business with the federal government. The Administration should complete this study and share with the Subcommittee for its analysis; (2) DoD’s Industrial Base Policy office is leading a Supply Chain Resiliency Working Group to catalog available DoD industrial base data, identify data gaps, standardize data collection, and develop proposals to integrate disparate data sources into a centralized database. The Administration should complete this effort and share with the Subcommittee for analysis; (3) the Bureau of Industry and Security is conducting a comprehensive assessment of U.S. civil space industrial base in partnership with NASA and NOAA. The Administration should expand this study to include all government space activities and serve as an update to Commerce’s comprehensive 2014 space supply chain study.	Access Agency Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	15.00%	Access Committee Website	Yes
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	Following submission of thirty recommendations to the NSpC on Dec. 19, 2023, the NSpC Office forwarded them to U.S. government (USG) departments and agencies for review and comment. The National Space Council Executive Secretary has noted that the responses from USG departments and agencies are currently being collated and will be forwarded to the UAG. The UAG has been informally notified that at least one of these recommendations is fully implemented and two more are partially implemented. At this time, the rest of the recommendations continue to be implemented by various National Space Council Agencies and Departments in incremental fashion, as most of the Recommendations are comprised of multi-year efforts to provide strategic benefit to the US space sector.	Access GSA FACA Website	Yes
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	13.00%	Access Publications	Yes
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	Most of the recommendations made are intended to provide strategic benefit to the space sector and are thus multi-year efforts. However a good portion of them are being adopted by Space Council Agencies and Departments to improve their "whole of government" approach to further improve space access to serve people on Earth through greater science, remote sensing / observations, weather forecasting, climate modeling, and exploration applications.	Access Other	No
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	Access to National Space Council UAG working information is available through the NASA-hosted website or through the NASA-designated DFO. The findings, recommendations, and meeting minutes are available at the UAG website hosted by NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/national-space-council-users-advisory-group A contact e-mail has been set up for the public to submit a question, comment, or idea to the UAG: contact@spacecounciluag.org. Other methods of information dissemination are also being considered.
Agency Feedback Comment*	Contact the committee DFO for information on the Agency feedback process.	Narrative Description*	The National Space Council (NSpC) Users’ Advisory Group (UAG) is a Federal Advisory Committee governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The first charter was signed on 12/6/2017 and runs two years before renewal. The charter was last renewed on 11/29/2023. Since 2019, the UAG has been managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN) Program. The UAG is intended to be industry and other non-Federal stakeholders’ voice to the NSpC and is tasked with advising the NSpC with any and all space policy issues relevant to these stakeholders. It consists of up to 30 members representing industry, academia, and government. Under the current Charter, the UAG is organized into the following six subcommittees: (1) Exploration and Discovery, (2) National Security, (3) Economic Development and Industrial Base, (4) STEM Education, Diversity, and Inclusion, (5) Climate and Societal Benefits, and (6) Data and Emerging Technology Subcommittee. members normally serve on two of the following six subcommittees based on expertise and interest.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	2/24/2025 9:37 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Space Space and Aeronautics

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports