At this point for the space enthusiast, the transition of nomenclature from Space Situational Awareness (SSA) to Space Domain Awareness (SDA) is basically complete. And everyone knows exactly why the change was made, and exactly what it means right? If so, read no further! If not, October 4, 2019 was the date and Major General Shaw, Deputy Commander Space Air Force Space Command was messenger. The change was actually quite simple and paralleled the widely-implemented shift in acknowledgement that space is not just a contributory physical expanse to military endeavour performed elsewhere, but rather a contested domain of warfare. So whereas SSA may have been concerned mainly with the foundational characterisation of resident space objects and understanding the space operating environment, the nomenclature of SDA could be said to have shifted to a more expansive effort; one that aims to collect all necessary information required to conduct all battle management tasks that may apply to the space domain. This change may seem subtle, but it shifted the all-important so what from supporting safe and effective space operations, to achieving domain-specific operational superiority. You could say it swapped doing for winning, in so far as simplicity and superficiality applies to such a expansive topic. For many, the change can be viewed as nothing more than an irritating yet otherwise meaningless alteration of nomenclature for no good or conceivable reason. The need to perform object detection, orbit determination, correlation and effect the update of a library of ephemerides is still extant after all. It changes nothing about the mathematics behind perturbations, nor did the change immediately render the power of a nicely decoupled state vector and a propagation model obsolete. The radars, telescopes and receiver arrays collecting the data care not about the change. But for those now needing to understand how a military should go about its business in space, what it did is provide a key impetus to link resident space object tracking to military effect. To understand this further we can contrive a parallel purely for it’s explanatory value. The work undertaken to detect, track, characterise and monitor space objects that was performed as a general SSA functionality, fits almost perfectly into the tasks described by the first half of the dynamic targeting methodology of find, fix, track, target, execute and assess, otherwise known as F2T2EA. This F2T2EA methodology or variations of it are utilised by militaries throughout the world to explain the dynamic steps necessary to engage targets. So what? Well, making a connection like this can signpost a convenient way of organising the military SDA mission into more readily recognisable and digestible terms, especially to a non-space, yet military-aware audience. To state it simply, F2T is performed predominately by sensors and the systems that manage and support them. The following target, engage and assess tasks, each undertaken in domain-specific ways, are buried within that classified, complex, at times artistic approach to warfare that is the realm of planners, intelligence staff, legal officers and finally decision-owners. Of note, these tasks may not necessarily be performed in continuous or strictly linear ways, and it should be pointed out that ’target’ in this context is a verb, and does not (and indeed for space, should not) necessarily conclude with an object being blown up. Indeed, the targets being affected by a space operation may not even be in space! Continuing with this equivalency, it could be recognised that F2T makes a convenient synonym for what was a generally accepted foundational understanding of SSA, that is, to make and maintain a catalogue of space objects. It also allows a simple approach to understand the broad requirements of the sensor-data-sensor tasking portions of a Space Domain Awareness mission system. How convenient! What else to take from this? Well, it can indicate that domain appraisal under an SDA-like understanding does not have to stop solely with the SSA-like find, fix, and track efforts; efforts that can and will be performed outside of the military, and possibly fit under a label like ‘space traffic management’. Significantly for military space planners, generation of the catalogue instead now represents the start of the contested part of the SDA mission, with targeting and the follow-on tasks representing the bulk of the military-focussed effort in the space domain. And additionally, this explanation could also provide a doctrinal linkage for technological advancement in sensor design, mathematical reduction, perturbation modelling and conjunction assessment to impact on the military mission. Why should I care about your fancy sensor? Because of space targets Sir! The desired end-state of SDA? Valid, legal, safe, accessible, assessable and deterministic space-domain targets, chosen with care and due diligence to support national aims. If that’s not the end-state, then Major General Shaw needn’t have bothered.