The satellite refueling military value is under growing scrutiny as top U.S. Space Force officials question whether the benefits outweigh the costs. While air refueling extends aircraft range, in-space refueling has not shown the same tactical payoff.
Lt. Gen. Shawn Bratton, Space Force deputy chief of operations, recently restated his doubts. At a space conference in New Mexico, he explained that most satellites don’t retire due to fuel shortages. “They fail due to technical issues, not empty fuel tanks,” he said.
This skepticism is not new. Bratton and Gen. Chance Saltzman have repeatedly told lawmakers they see little strategic benefit. Instead of refueling, they argue it may be cheaper and more effective to replace satellites.
Still, private companies like Northrop Grumman are advocating for in-orbit servicing. They say refueling and repairs reduce space debris and extend satellite lifespan. Yet, without defense contracts, the market remains unstable.
Space Command shows more interest—especially in satellites that monitor other spacecraft. These need frequent repositioning and use more fuel, making refueling potentially valuable.
To explore the concept, the Space Force has launched studies and scheduled tests in 2026 and 2027. These will evaluate satellite refueling in low and geostationary Earth orbit.
Bratton remains cautious. Satellites in GEO are expensive, but not designed to be refueled. “The current fleet offers limited opportunity,” he said.
A key problem is leadership. Private firms want the Defense Department to lead. The Pentagon wants the private sector to take initiative. “Everyone’s waiting for the other side to move first,” Bratton noted.
Unless future tests show clear wartime advantages, the Space Force will likely stay skeptical. “Prove to me how satellite refueling helps win a war,” Bratton said. “Then I’ll be interested.”
READ : Artemis 2 Moon Rocket Fully Stacked for NASA’s 2026 Launch
