Opinion: Do Commercial Space Companies Have Too Much Power?

In September 2022, Ukrainian forces requested Starlink satellite support from SpaceX to attack Russian naval vessels in Crimea. SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk denied this request, perceiving that this act would render his parent company “explicitly complicit in a major act of war.” This latest revelation underscores the gravity of commercial space entities in modern conflicts: Their actions—or lack thereof, in this case—shape military outcomes.

The vibrancy of the commercial space industry is a boon to 21st-century security and defense. Commercial space companies are creating economies of scale and driving down costs, adapting to push capability updates in the face of changing battlefield realities and mass-producing systems to fit a wide range of civil and military applications. All these qualities make commercial capabilities especially advantageous to supplement and support military missions. However, where there is gain, there is risk: The Starlink news underlines the vulnerabilities inherent in nations’ overreliance on commercial space assets in wartime.

The Ukraine war is the first conflict in which commercial space assets have been used at scale and to strategic effect. SpaceX’s outsized role is thus precedent-setting, and it raises questions about the appropriate role of commercial space companies in supporting national security missions as well as the responsibility of governments to protect space companies in such roles.

The rewards and risks of government reliance on commercial space have been on display in the Ukraine conflict: Musk supplied satellites to Ukraine in a matter of days when war erupted, providing a digital lifeline to Ukraine for months. He then threatened to cut off access if the U.S. government did not pay the bill, before winning a Pentagon contract to provide satellite services for Ukraine this June. SpaceX executives have expressed a desire to stay out of war and said they intend to restrict the use of their satellites for offensive military purposes.

This position is not surprising for a tech company; fundamentally, commercial space companies are motivated by different incentives than governments. However, this stance exposes major power imbalances in the public--private space relationship and highlights an inherent risk in relying too heavily on commercial actors absent an obligation of service. 

Without a contract, the company gets a vote on how its assets and services will be used to support national security objectives. The Pentagon concedes control to the private sector when it relies deeply on companies for its space capability. While SpaceX is under scrutiny, it is not the only space company that will face decisions that pit self-sustaining and economic interests against national security imperatives. To better balance the necessity for public-private collaboration in space, the onus is on the Pentagon to set clearer direction and safeguards for the integration of commercial assets into its space strategy.

Commercial space companies—which have benefited greatly from the federally funded basic and advanced research underpinning their technological development—also have an obligation to see themselves as national champions serving in times of national security need.

The space domain is experiencing growing pains as private-sector entities proliferate and replace public organizations as the pioneers of technological developments. Governments must balance their reliance on and partnership with commercial space smartly, and this begins with sending clear signals to the space-industrial base.

First, government contracts with commercial space entities should be explicit that the services acquired can be used in times of conflict. Agreeing on contractual language that does not dissuade commercial entities from working with governments will be a balancing act, but such clarity will be necessary to ensure these capabilities are available.

Second, given that China and Russia view commercial space assets as targets of warfare, governments need to grapple with whether and when they should designate commercial assets as critical infrastructure, the incapacitation of which would be detrimental to national security and thus require guarantees of national protection.

Finally, governments should reassess the space capabilities they will need in conflict—particularly against technologically advanced space powers like China—and prioritize building a reliable and robust national capacity for the most critical infrastructure. Outsourcing is efficient, but governments must be able to fulfill national security imperatives apart from the whims of commercial decision-making.

Commercial space is here to stay, and the Pentagon must understand and shape the role of the space-industrial base in modern conflict. Striking the right balance will be critical to an enduring U.S. military advantage through space. 

Clementine G. Starling is the director and Julia Siegel is an associate director of the Forward Defense program of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. 

The views expressed are not necessarily those of Aviation Week.