WASHINGTON — The Space Force is eyeing innovative in-orbit refueling technology, but a key question lingers: is it worth the cost, especially when the military is considering a shift towards cheaper, disposable satellites?
The jury’s still out on the value proposition, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman said at a House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee hearing April 30.
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) pressed Saltzman about the $20 million allocated in the Space Force’s fiscal year 2025 budget for studying the military utility of space-based services such as refueling.
“China already has demonstrated these capabilities,” Aderholt said, echoing comments made April 16 by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Refueling holds immense appeal for expensive, high-value satellites in geostationary orbit, where replacing them can cost billions, Saltzman said. Topping them off with fuel could significantly extend their lifespan, making the cost of refueling a drop in the bucket compared to a whole new satellite.
However, the Space Force is looking to a future with a “proliferated architecture” — with networks of many smaller, lower-cost satellites in lower orbits, he said. These constellations would provide similar functionality, but with a redundancy built-in. If one satellite fails, others can pick up the slack. This very characteristic that makes them valuable might also make them expendable.
The challenge for the Space Force is to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs, Saltzman explained.
Concerns about demand signals
Defense budget analysts on April 30 expressed concern that the Space Force’s cautious approach to in-orbit refueling and other emerging commercial space services could have unintended consequences, such as impact on private sector investment.
The hesitancy from the Space Force about in-space services sends a mixed message, said Todd…
Read the full article here
