Space technology consulting firm Novaspace released a white paper recently with a dramatic argument: that the United States and Europe should dramatically develop their in-orbit satellite refuelling capabilities, in order to facilitate a major shift in space-domain operations.
This was the main thrust of “The Missing Link to Space Superiority: In-Orbit Refuelling.” Though written by Novaspace and published this January, the white paper is actually the product of a conference that took place back in October of 2025. The conference brought together “leaders in defense and commercial space, national security (USA and Europe), the private equity and venture investment community, futurists, strategists and cyber-space experts,” according to Novaspace, who were “hand-selected for their expertise in defense and commercial space systems.”
The experts came together for 3 days “at a remote location” to discuss the question of in-orbit refuelling and its impact on space security. While Novaspace did not share the participants or their comments—the discussion was held under “Chatham House Rule”—they did publish the overall conclusion.
According to Novaspace, “what emerged [from the meeting] is that in-orbit refuelling must be one of the key strategic priorities for space.”
Orbital refuelling
In-orbit satellite refuelling is not a novel concept, even in Canadian space; one prominent Canadian startup, Obruta Space Solutions, is focused on developing technologies that make in-orbit refuelling more viable by allowing spacecraft to dock and refuel autonomously without human intervention. This is normally seen as a way to extend the longevity of expensive satellites, particularly expensive satellites in geosynchronous Earth orbit.
Novaspace’s white paper acknowledges this role, but adds a different perspective, saying that in-orbit refuelling (IOR) can be an instrument of protecting “space superiority”: the ability to operate in the space domain without disruption and, if necessary, to disrupt opponents’ ability to operate in the domain in turn. Calling it an “indispensable pillar of defense and security,” Novaspace’s white paper says that this superiority requires “the capacity to effectively sustain operations, defend critical assets and recover from disruption faster than adversaries.”
Novaspace points to a key problem: satellites only have a limited amount of propellant, and therefore “operators must meticulously plan and approve every maneuver” in order to conserve the propellant. Once the satellite’s propellant runs out, it becomes vulnerable to disruption, or even to collision, rendering expensive geosynchronous (GEO) satellites potentially useless. And even for smaller low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites, Novaspace still points to the issue of “launch choke points,” where replenishment of a constellation becomes dependent on a comparatively small number of launch providers.
Refuelling can help to resolve these problems, extending satellites’ lifespans, minimizing potential disruption, reinforcing constellations, and potentially adding new capabilities.
Comparative refuelling capabilities
Despite the potential importance of these capabilities, however, Novaspace says that the United States and Europe are lagging behind China on developing them. China, they said, “has invested heavily in refuelling technologies,” and Novaspace pointed to their Tianzhou program as an example of successful demonstration of GEO satellite refuelling through the Shijian-21 and Shijian-25 satellites.
NASA and the ESA have invested in some refuelling technologies—Novaspace points to the American Kamino program as an example—but said that “most US systems remain effectively single use once on orbit,” and claim that they’re lagging badly behind China. They said that can change, however, through “policy and targeted funding, through co-invested depots, anchor-tenant contracts and guaranteed demand,” which could “rapidly turn demonstrations into a scalable, resilient IOR ecosystem.”
The white paper points to two private frameworks as potential options for developing IOR.
Orbit Fab is looking to use orbital propellant “depots,” with shuttles carrying propellant from those depots to satellites and then using cooperative RPOD (rendezvous, proximity operations, and docking) interfaces to connect the shuttles with RPOD-equipped satellites.
Northrop Grumman, meanwhile, uses an “active servicer and passive client interface” framework, where a single-mission robotic servicer carries propellant, navigation and a robotic arm to satellites with fully-passive refuelling modules. After servicing, the servicer is either disposed of, or or put on standby for its next mission.
Novaspace sees the first framework as more “infrastructure-based” and the second as more “mission-based.” In fact, they aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive; the white paper said that “the infrastructure-based approach can be seen as a natural long-term evolution of the mission-based approach.”
Defence applications
So what would developing this capability unlock? According to Novaspace, it would add “operational agility,” giving military and dual-use satellites “the ability to maneuver, reposition, replenish and operate for longer periods.”
Novaspace said that this would “directly support the shift towards maneuver warfare in space.” Maneuver in space has been tightly constrained “by finite propellant and tightly bounded delta-v budgets,” they said, which has had the effect of “forcing space assets into largely predictable orbits and operational patterns.” Access to propellant refuelling capabilities would dramatically change that; satellites would be able to maneuver more frequently and over longer durations, which would let them “sustain dynamic orbital positioning and reconstitute delta-v (i.e., re-fuel) margins as missions evolve.”
Adding this maneuver capability would, Novaspace said, enable “persistent yet adaptive surveillance, responsive repositioning and the ability to complicate adversary targeting and planning.” It would, in turn, start to shift space operations to a model of “continuous operational movement” as satellites become less predictable and more mobile. In particular, they cited this as a critical component of any attempt to implement the “Golden Dome” missile defence project, which would rely heavily on space-based assets.
Novaspace also pointed to the benefits to commercial operators: greater collision avoidance and repositioning capabilities, a greater ability to recover from “insertion anomalies,” and the ability to “trade fuel mass for payload” at launch, allowing satellites to have larger payloads.
“Anchoring” development of in-orbit refuelling capabilities
The white paper said that developing these capabilities “should be clearly anchored within specific government organizations.” In the United States, that would be the U.S. Space Force, though they also see a role for the Defence Logistics Agency (DLA) as a “natural partner for framing refuelling as a logistics function rather than a bespoke satellite program.” In Europe, meanwhile, it would fall to the European Space Agency (ESA), national space agencies and European defence ministries. The white paper also said that orbital mobility and sustainability “should be institutionalized within operator training, exercises and readiness assessments.”
In particular, these agencies should provide “government-anchored demand and cost sharing” to help “compress” the technical and market risk for private firms working on developing these capabilities.
Novaspace acknowledged that private capital “will be essential to scaling IOR.” They believe that IOR will, however, offer “a dual-track investment profile that is difficult for capital markets to ignore” if handled correctly. Firms working on developing these capabilities in the near term can have credible exit paths to either acquisition by primes or government-backed scale-up. In the long term, however, what would emerge is “long-duration infrastructure asset class in space” with “contracted demand, predictable utilization and stable cash flows.”
Once IOR matures, Novaspace said, investors can expect that it will “behave less like speculative technology bets and more like orbital utilities.”
Novaspace’s five key actions
To reach this maturity, Novaspace outlines five urgent actions:
- Transition to operational missions: Move from experimental technology demonstrations to mission-critical infrastructure.
- Establish common standards: Define interface specifications and fuel transfer protocols across allied ecosystems to enable secondary markets.
- Joint U.S.–European investment: Create a framework to reduce financial risk and provide “predictable demand signals” via anchor-tenant contracts.
- Treat IOR as strategic infrastructure: Move away from viewing refueling as a “niche” or “nice-to-have” capability.
- Foster a cultural shift: Transition from a mindset of “driving to church” (static operations) to “operating for combat” (maneuver-centric operations).
The Canadian angle
SpaceQ reached out to Novaspace about the white paper and the event. Author’s Carla Filotico, Partner and Managing Director and Rainer Horn, Partner and Managing Director provided additional context, noting that the October event included a Canadian participant. The invitation-only meeting included representatives from large industry players, emerging organizations, private capital, and former military commanders.
On the Canadian angle, Filotico and Horn said that there was a Canadian participant in the event. Beyond that, they weren’t able to give any additional information on the event, only saying that it included “representatives from the industry both large players and emerging organizations, private capital investors, consultancy firms and former military commanders.”
Filotico and Horn said that the idea was to create “a small and trusted environment where participants could speak openly and challenge assumptions.”
When asked about the potential involvement of countries like Canada that are outside of the event’s US-Europe focus, Filotico and Horn said that they “expect that major spacefaring nations will likely seek to support and develop their own national champions in the field”, and that countries like Canada will likely serve as prospective markets for in-orbit refuelling infrastructure. They added that Canadian space companies, such as MDA Space, “are already quite advanced in this domain and can bring significant value to the ecosystem.”
Filotico and Horn also pointed to Japan’s Astroscale as a country outside of the US-Europe framework that is “making strong progress in in-orbit servicing technologies.”
Finally, as to the question of getting all this propellant into orbit and the cost of it, Filotico and Horn said that “even if launching fuel is costly, the satellites being serviced are far more valuable assets.” They believe that the falling cost of launch will be important to the development of in-orbit refuelling infrastructure, but also that there are opportunities for spreading the cost across a large number launches, slowly refuelling the orbital “depots” in between satellite refuelling missions.
In the long term, they believe that lunar resources may come into play, but that “we do not see this happening in the near future.”