The Pentagon has stopped debating whether commercial satellites belong in its warfighting plans. It is now building strategy around the certainty that they do.

A quiet but significant shift is underway inside the U.S. Space Force, one that moves commercial space from a nice-to-have supplement into the core of military planning. The catalyst was Ukraine, where privately owned space systems became essential to the fight, providing communications, intelligence, and battlefield connectivity that no government constellation could have delivered alone at speed. The conflict has been widely described by military analysts as representing a new era of commercial space integration in warfare, and the lessons are reshaping how the U.S. military thinks about satellite dependency, procurement, and risk.

But formalizing that dependency introduces problems that are as much psychological and institutional as they are technical. Who bears the risk when a commercial operator becomes a military target? How do you preserve the speed and flexibility of private enterprise while binding it to wartime obligations? And what happens to the humans who design, operate, and depend on these systems when the line between civilian and combatant infrastructure disappears?

The Ukraine Precedent

Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 triggered something unprecedented in the history of space conflict. Commercial satellite operators, from SpaceX’s Starlink to Maxar’s imaging fleet, became active participants in a shooting war without ever being formally conscripted. Ukrainian forces used Starlink terminals for battlefield communications. Western commercial imaging companies tracked Russian troop movements and shared data openly. Russian officials warned that commercial satellites could become legitimate targets for retaliation, a statement that forced governments and private companies alike to confront an uncomfortable reality.

Russia backed up the threat with action, at least on the electronic warfare front. Reports suggest GPS jamming affected drones monitoring the buildup near Ukraine. At the outset of fighting, cyber attacks targeted Viasat ground terminals purchased by the Ukrainian military. Starlink terminals were jammed. The message was clear: commercial space assets operating near a conflict zone are not exempt from attack.

The broader fallout reshaped the commercial space market itself. Russia’s launch services became unavailable to Western customers, stranding numerous satellites that had been scheduled for launch. The global launch services market began rearranging around the absence of Russian capacity. The war demonstrated that commercial space was not peripheral to geopolitics. It was embedded in it.

CASR: The Airline Model for Satellites

The U.S. Space Force’s response has been to study something called the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve, or CASR. The concept borrows from the Civil Reserve Air Fleet model, where civilian airlines commit to making aircraft available for defense transport during national emergencies. Under CASR, commercial satellite operators would commit a portion of their capacity to military use during a crisis.

According to Space Systems Command’s Commercial Space Office, one key challenge is operationalizing commercial capabilities at scale while preserving their commercial characteristics.

That sentence contains the entire tension. Commercial satellites are valuable to the military precisely because they are commercial: rapidly iterated, cost-effective, globally distributed, and operated by companies competing to serve paying customers. The moment you lock those assets into wartime reserve obligations, you start eroding the business model that produced them.

CASR has been studied for years. The unresolved questions are substantial. If a commercial provider diverts bandwidth from paying customers during a crisis, who compensates for the lost revenue? What happens to international business relationships when a satellite operator becomes openly aligned with U.S. military operations? And the most uncomfortable question of all: does participation make a company and its employees military targets under international humanitarian law?

The Targeting Problem

This is where the psychology of the situation gets difficult. The people who build, launch, and operate commercial satellites did not sign up to be combatants. They are engineers, software developers, operations center staff. But when their systems are providing real-time intelligence to a military at war, the distinction between civilian operator and military enabler becomes blurred in ways that international law struggles to resolve.

Open-source research has documented Russia’s expanding counterspace weapons capabilities. Moscow possesses everything from GPS jammers and cyber tools to direct-ascent anti-satellite missiles and high-powered lasers. Analysis of global counterspace weapons activities shows Russia as one of the most active developers of such capabilities.

The legal framework offers limited comfort. International humanitarian law requires distinguishing between military objectives and civilian objects. But commercial “dual-use” satellites, serving both civilian populations and military forces, exist in a gray zone. Legal analysts have noted there is no bright-line rule in how military uses of commercial satellites can be lawfully targeted while also minimizing harm to civilian users.

For the humans operating these systems, the ambiguity is not abstract. It is a daily question about whether the work they do could make them, their colleagues, and their ground infrastructure targets in a conflict they did not choose to enter.

The Pentagon’s Pivot: Own It, but Let Industry Build It

Partly because of these unresolved liability and targeting questions, the Pentagon appears to be pursuing an alternative path. Instead of relying on emergency capacity agreements with commercial providers, the military is moving toward acquiring government-owned satellite systems that are commercially built and operated.

Industry experts note that hybrid networks can achieve greater scale by serving both commercial and military users simultaneously.

These mini GEO satellite systems allow the government to operate their own geostationary network constellation with the flexibility to redirect bandwidth to areas of high demand. This is a significant development. It means the military can own the asset, control its use during conflict, and avoid the legal and commercial complications of commandeering private infrastructure, while still benefiting from commercial manufacturing speed and cost structures.

The hybrid approach also creates a cybersecurity advantage. When commercial and military traffic share the same network, adversaries face greater difficulty determining how data is being routed, frustrating intelligence collection efforts.

What This Means for the People Involved

The institutional machinery of defense procurement tends to focus on hardware and contracts. It is less comfortable dealing with what happens to the workforce when the commercial space sector becomes a warfighting domain. As I’ve written about in the context of the human factors the Pentagon often overlooks, the people dimension of this shift deserves more attention than it is getting.

Commercial satellite operators who enter agreements with the military, whether through CASR or government-owned systems, are asking their employees to operate in a different risk environment. The stress of knowing your ground station could be targeted by a nation-state adversary is qualitatively different from the stress of managing customer service-level agreements. Organizational psychology research consistently shows that perceived threat, especially ambiguous and uncontrollable threat, degrades decision-making and increases burnout.

The defense establishment has decades of experience supporting uniformed personnel through these conditions. It has essentially no framework for supporting the commercial workforce it now depends on.

SpaceX demonstrated in Ukraine that software agility can overcome electronic attacks. When Russia jammed Starlink terminals, engineers pushed software updates that restored service within hours. That kind of rapid response requires people who are sharp, motivated, and operating under manageable cognitive load. It does not happen in organizations where the workforce is anxious, under-supported, and unclear about their legal status in a conflict.

The Broader Strategic Picture

The shift toward commercial satellite dependence is happening against a backdrop of accelerating space competition with China. Beijing has been expanding its own satellite constellations at speed, and threat assessments identify China alongside Russia as active developers of counterspace weapons. The race to integrate commercial space into military strategy is not occurring in a vacuum. It is part of a broader contest over who controls the orbital infrastructure that modern warfare depends on.

The Pentagon’s approach reflects a recognition that government-only satellite programs cannot keep pace with commercial innovation. The traditional acquisition cycle takes years. SpaceX launches dozens of Starlink satellites in a single mission. The math favors commercial integration.

But the math only works if the institutional and human challenges are solved. Liability frameworks that leave commercial operators exposed will discourage participation. Compensation structures that don’t account for real business losses will erode trust. And a failure to address the psychological and organizational burden on commercial workforces will create fragility in precisely the systems the military is counting on for resilience.

Lt. Col. Trimailo framed the core problem as making commercial technology more robust for military use without stripping away the attributes that made it valuable. That is an engineering metaphor, and it captures something real about the hardware. But the same principle applies to people and organizations. You can harden a workforce for wartime operations. You cannot do it by ignoring the fact that you are asking them to enter a fundamentally different kind of risk.

The Pentagon is no longer asking whether commercial space matters in future conflicts. The answer came back from Ukraine, in real time, written in Starlink uplinks and Maxar imagery. The harder question, the one that will determine whether this strategy actually works, is whether the institutions building it are willing to deal with the full cost of what they are asking commercial space to become.

Photo by Rafa Sants on Pexels