What does RAND's study on America’s Dependence on Space conclude about dependence?

• A. Both the U.S. military and civil society are critically dependent on space; a large-scale loss would result in catastrophic collapse of both.
• B. The U.S. civilian economy is very dependent on space, but the military is not because it has alternative means of getting the support that satellites provide.
• C. The U.S. military is very dependent on support it receives from orbital assets, but the U.S. economy and civil society is less dependent on space than many people assume.
• D. While the U.S. military and civil society both use space for a wide range of functions, neither is truly dependent on it.

Answer: (C)

The study separates dependency by sector and shows a clear difference between military use and civilian reliance. The military relies heavily on space assets—GPS for navigation and timing, SATCOM for communications, ISR for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and various satellite-based capabilities for command and control. Losing those orbital assets would noticeably degrade military effectiveness and situational awareness.

In contrast, the civilian economy and civil society are not as dependent on space as the military is. Even though satellites support many services—finance, weather, communications, broadcasting—the economy has redundancies and terrestrial alternatives that would lessen the impact of a space outage. So, while space assets are important, the civilian side does not hinge on them to the same extent as the military.

That’s why the conclusion aligns with saying the military is very dependent on orbital assets, but the economy and civil society are less dependent on space than many people assume.