WASHINGTON — The U.S. military relies on air-to-air refueling to extend the range and endurance of fighter jets. But when it comes to refueling satellites in orbit — a capability touted by commercial space companies — top U.S. Space Force officials remain unconvinced.
“I don’t know that I see the clear military advantage of refueling,” Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton, the Space Force’s deputy chief of operations for strategy, plans, programs and requirements, said last week at the State of the Space Industrial Base Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
It’s not the first time Bratton has voiced reservations. His comments echoed similar remarks made more than a year ago at a Washington think tank. And in testimony to Congress, Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman has also questioned whether it’s more cost-effective to service satellites in space or simply replace them when they run out of fuel.
The debate reflects uncertainty about whether in-space refueling services offer better value than simply replacing fuel-depleted satellites.
Companies like Northrop Grumman and startups backed by venture capital have pushed the case for in-space servicing — including refueling, repairing, and repositioning satellites — as a way to reduce orbital debris and maximize satellite utility. Yet without strong backing from government buyers like the Space Force, the business case remains shaky.
Bratton acknowledged that the question of refueling isn’t black and white. Logistics in space is a new area, he said, adding that the infrastructure required for refueling satellites might come from the government, the private sector — or both.
But unlike the Air Force and Navy, where refueling aircraft has clear benefits, Bratton said the strategic edge in orbit is less obvious. “Aerial refueling extends the range of the aircraft. You can go further, deliver capability further across the Earth,” he said. “With spacecraft, the issue is life extension.”
That’s an important distinction. Many satellites, especially older military ones, are retired not because they run out of fuel, but due to technical failures. “With most of our spacecraft, it’s almost never because of fuel,” Bratton said. “It’s usually something else on the spacecraft.”
One exception is satellites used for space domain awareness — military jargon for monitoring other satellites. These need frequent repositioning and burn through fuel more quickly, which is why U.S. Space Command has emerged as a more vocal advocate for refueling capabilities.
Still, the Space Force is taking a data-driven approach. Bratton pointed to ongoing studies assessing the costs and trade-offs of refueling spacecraft in both low Earth orbit (LEO) and the more distant geostationary orbit (GEO), where satellites provide persistent surveillance and communications.
In parallel, the Space Force is funding in-orbit refueling experiments slated for 2026 and 2027, signaling that the military remains open to testing the concept even amid skepticism.
Maybe not now, but in 10 years
Satellites in GEO are especially expensive, making them logical candidates for refueling — at least in theory. There are more valuable assets up there, said Bratton. “But are there enough of those that warrant building a refueling architecture and getting it up there?” The answer, he said, may be no—at least not yet. Maybe 10 years from now may be the time when that architecture would be warranted, he said.
Part of the challenge, Bratton suggested, is the current generation of satellites. Many were not designed to be refueled or repaired. “With the fleet we’re flying today, the answer is not much,” he said, referring to what can realistically be serviced in orbit.
That has left the commercial space industry and the Pentagon locked in a sort of standoff. Companies want the Department of Defense to act as an anchor customer for refueling services. The military wants industry to take the lead—and the risk.
“We really want commercial to lead in refueling,” Bratton said. “And commercial really wants DoD to lead in refueling. And we’re all like, staring each other down on who’s gonna blink first.”
Ultimately, the military’s decision will likely hinge on whether refueling can be shown to provide a clear advantage in a conflict scenario, he added. That means more experiments, more data and more simulations.
“Show me the military advantage, if I go to war with China, how does refueling help me beat them?” Bratton said. “Then I’m super interested. But if you can’t show me that, then it’s a science project.”
