Golden Dome: Industry leans in despite lingering questions
Space industry executives say they are continuing to invest in the Golden Dome missile defense initiative even as questions persist about its scope, cost and long-term political durability.
During a panel discussion at the SmallSat Symposium, industry analyst Chris Quilty openly questioned whether the effort will ultimately endure or follow the path of past modernization programs that were canceled after years of development.
"We've all heard talks about $25 billion in the budget this year, and hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, depending upon how you size it," said Quilty, chief executive of Quilty Space. He described Golden Dome as a "budget crosswalk … an amalgamation of things" rather than an actual program.
More than a year after President Trump issued an executive order directing the Pentagon to pursue the effort, Quilty asked executives: "Is this something that has staying power, or is this another Crusader program or Comanche that runs its course for several years and gets canceled?"
He was referencing the Crusader artillery system and the RAH-66 Comanche, two high-profile Army programs scrapped in the early 2000s after billions had been spent amid cost growth and shifting strategic priorities.
Golden Dome is envisioned as a layered homeland defense architecture integrating ground, airborne and space-based systems to detect, track and intercept ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missiles.
Missile defense problem not going away
Mark Hanson, senior mission architect at Redwire, said the issue transcends political cycles.
"Our position is that it's a real problem, the budget notwithstanding," Hanson said. "Whether it's Golden Dome or some other name, it's a real problem that does have to be solved to defend the country. So to that extent, we are devoting internal resources, working with teammates to begin to architect and understand how we would go about solving it."
Redwire is using digital engineering to model "system of systems" scenarios, Hanson said. "And in that sense, however it's defined as a budget item, a crosswalk or wherever, we are actively looking into solutions as to how you would solve it."
Chris Daywalt, vice president of growth at Loft Federal, the U.S. subsidiary of Loft Orbital, struck a similar tone.
"This problem will persist through administrations, through different congresses," he said. "This is a significant call to action that we need to get after, and the technologies to do that we've been developing for years, and we're continuing to deploy them," he added. "That call to action represents a reason for us to continue to invest into this and continue to prepare how we're going to go after the different line items that inevitably will come out."
John Vargas, executive vice president of growth at Voyager Technologies, said his firm is investing in propulsion, space electronics, radios and cameras that could support a Golden Dome architecture. These capabilities, he said, "can empower the Golden Dome architecture, but can also empower other solutions that are being developed by the Space Force and others."
Program's contours remain unclear
"We still don't have a good idea of what Golden Dome is," Quilty said.
Program manager Gen. Michael Guetlein has indicated he does not plan to provide open briefings because of cybersecurity threats from foreign actors. "So they've decided to basically keep the entire program behind the classified wall," Quilty noted.
John Rood, president and chief executive of Momentus, said he has "mixed emotions" about that approach. Rood, a former U.S. defense intelligence official, said he understands the need to protect sensitive information.
At the same time, "part of our strength in the United States is this open system by which we can have that innovation," he said.
"There is a balance that I understand General Guetlein is trying to strike, but I would personally like to see more of an open dialog about some of the challenges that need to be met, to encourage some of these other players to come in from the tech industry."
Watching the clock
Defense analyst Tom Karako of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said the pace of the initiative has not matched early expectations, though he cautioned that the effort is complex.
In the coming weeks and possibly months, "if we don't begin to see contracts, I'm going to start to get a little more nervous," Karako said Feb. 13. "You're definitely going to see some tests and that sort of thing."
More fundamentally, he said, the program needs broad political backing. "What we need to see is a widespread and bipartisan understanding of the basic idea of what we're trying to do here and how it contributes to deterrence," Karako said.
As with any large defense effort, politics can shift. "Golden Dome should not be political. It should not be a lightning rod. The threats don't care whether you're blue or red, which state you're in … And so this kind of capability development needs to be sustained," he added.
| 
