New space stations?

[pecksniff]

The ISS is nearing the end of its design life.

With this new development, it seems Russia's plans to abandon ISS, forcing NASA to find a way to keep the station running without Russia, are up in the air (so to speak). But even if Russia does stick around, when you consider that the ISS project began in 1998 with an expected service life of 15 years, the station's days are clearly numbered. Whether the actual end date is 2023, 2030, or somewhere in between, eventually ISS is going to go away.

So what are we going to do when that happens?

Apparently, we're going to build new space stations -- commercial space stations, built by companies you can invest in.

We know this because earlier this month, NASA picked three companies out of a field of 11 bidders and awarded them "Commercial Low Earth Orbit Development" contracts totaling $415.6 million in value. The lucky winners were:

Aerospace and defense giant Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC), which won $125.6 million to develop a space station assembled from Northrop Cygnus cargo transport spacecraft.
Privately held Nanoracks, a subsidiary of Voyager Space Holdings, which was awarded $160 million to design a research-focused "Starlab" in cooperation with Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT).
And Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin space tourism company, which got $130 million to help it get its planned "Orbital Reef" space station concept off the ground.

Mind you, none of these space station concepts are quite ready for prime time. Both Nanoracks and Blue Origin are looking to begin launching modules only in the second half of this decade -- but before 2030 -- while Northrop hasn't made a date for its space station public yet. But if these plans pan out, investors could soon have at least two publicly traded space station operators, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin -- and potentially three, should Blue Origin decide to IPO -- to choose from.

 

[LupusDei]

Since they only took single NASA announcement of money for new developments, they overlooked Axiom, who are the most direct successor for ISS, sharing its orbit if not otherwise. Axiom will have one or two astronaut missions next year, and their first station module is in production, to be launched in 2023 I think.

 

[pecksniff]

Axiom Space:

Axiom Space, Inc., also known as Axiom, is an American privately funded space infrastructure developer headquartered in Houston, Texas. Founded in 2016 by Michael T. Suffredini and Kam Ghaffarian, the company is planning commercial missions in 2022 to the International Space Station (ISS) and aims to own and operate the world's first commercial space station in 2024.[3] The company's leadership team is largely composed of former NASA employees, including former NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.[4] Other key people at the company include astronauts Michael Lopez-Alegria and Brent W. Jett Jr.[5]

The company's planned commercial activities include human spaceflight for space tourists, as well as government-funded and commercial astronauts engaging in in-space research, in-space manufacturing, and space exploration.[6]

 

[pecksniff]

Of course, the Space Age won't really begin until there is space-based industry. I remember some writers like Jerry Pournelle, as long ago as the 1970s, foretold a new industrial revolution based on vacuum industries and zero-g industries and solar-power-collection stations, but there are no visible signs of such on the horizon. There have been tentative efforts in the direction of asteroid mining.

 

[pecksniff]

At present, "space industry" still refers mostly to things that happen on Earth's surface, not in space.

 

[LupusDei]

Of course, the Space Age won't really begin until there is space-based industry. I remember some writers like Jerry Pournelle, as long ago as the 1970s, foretold a new industrial revolution based on vacuum industries and zero-g industries and solar-power-collection stations, but there are no visible signs of such on the horizon. There have been tentative efforts in the direction of asteroid mining.

There's been very very limited space for experiments of that kind (other, more "pure" science or, human orbital habitation practical questions taking precedence), and none whatsoever so far for actual follow up manufacturing.

A huge hindrance for such still is launch costs. On-orbit manufacturing would need truly breathtaking added value to be competitive, yet. So far I'm aware of one product that might pioneer it even at existing constraints, a specific type of optical cable. At least one company is exploring possibilities to launch a small satellite with the material and production equipment that would produce a roll of cable and pack it into return capsule (the rest of satellite burns on reentry). Supposedly, that roll of that cable is expected to sell for enough to make profits.

The fact there's something like half a dozen commercial stations in the planning, some saying they would go for it with or without NASA as anchor tenant, at least indirectly confirm there should be at least some ideas floating for what to do up there besides finally trying to fuck (something that's expected to be harder than almost anyone seems to think).

 

[pecksniff]

Supposedly, that roll of that cable is expected to sell for enough to make profits.

Sounds improbable, considering the costs of doing anything in space.

 

[pecksniff]

The fact there's something like half a dozen commercial stations in the planning, some saying they would go for it with or without NASA as anchor tenant, at least indirectly confirm there should be at least some ideas floating for what to do up there besides finally trying to fuck (something that's expected to be harder than almost anyone seems to think).

All you need is magnetic harnesses with alternating poles.

 

[jaF0]

http://gatefans.net/gforums/attachments/babylon-5-reboot-film-jpg.32062/

 

[LupusDei]

Sounds improbable, considering the costs of doing anything in space.

Yup. It's not quite clear why anyone would want to pay what's likely seven figures for that. I don't know the special properties of the proposed product either, but if it's allowing for lower latency (speed of light in conventional optical cable is significantly lower than in vacuum, so improvement is possible) some specific use cases like high frequency trading could possibly justify it (those guys do some crazy things fighting for microseconds).

 

[LupusDei]

Biden say, ISS life to be extended. Expected, but Russians are increasingly unpredictable.

Also, a random article from Science Daily:

Leveraging space to advance stem cell science and medicine

Biomanufacturing -- a type of stem cell production that uses biological materials such as microbes to produce substances and biomaterials suitable for use in preclinical, clinical, and therapeutic applications -- can be more productive in microgravity conditions.

A major issue with producing these materials on Earth involves gravity-induced density, which makes it hard for cells to expand and grow. With the absence of gravity and density in space, scientists are hopeful that they can use 3D printing to print unique shapes and products, like organoids or cardiac tissues, in a way that can't be replicated on Earth.

 

[LittleDixie]

I always thought some kind of presence on the moon might be beneficial. Perhaps it would be a good place to put a deep space telescope or maybe some scientific installation. You don't have to put people there, but it would be viable. Landing on the moon isn't as complicated as returning to Earth.

The problem - I'd guess - would be to be the distance. You'd probably spend years just getting a working reservoir of water up there, and that's before you tackle food and an atmosphere. But, again, getting people up there isn't necessary, and you could just bring up what you could when you could each time you went to fix something or add to it.

I say we should look to the moon.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Here's what's announced/planned/in development. In parentheses I'll give you my own estimate of the probability of "on time/on schedule" success.

(Here are the ones I think have a high probability of on time/on schedule.)

China is ready to start assembling their space station in 2022/2023. They've already got two test platforms (prototype habitat modules) in orbit and have successfully flown missions to and orbited in both of the test platforms. (This one is close to a "done deal" as it gets - they've got the technology, they've got the funding, and they're already well into the mission plan.)

The US has ambitious plans of their own with Artemis (back to the moon) program, which encompasses both the Orion (lunar lander) and plans for an orbital platform around the moon (Gateway) which is scheduled to be launched in 2023. (This one is close to a "done deal" as well, same reasons - they have the technology, they have the funding, and they're well into the mission plan.)

India has ambitious plans to be up and in service by 2030 as part of their space program (called "Gaganyaan". They ran into some technical challenges in 2021, but seem to have resolved them. (I'd give them a high chance of making it with a caveat, primarily around technical issues - they have the drive and the funding, they're into the start of their mission plan, but they've never done it before and as the saying goes "Space is hard.")

(These ones have a medium probility of on time/on schedule.)

Starlab (Nanoracks, Voyager Space and Lockheed Martin) are planning to achieve operational capability for their joint venture (Starlab) by 2027. Nanoracks has a big leg up, in they've held the support contracts for ISS for the last decade, combined with Lockheed Martin's proven commercial launch capabilities. (I am almost tempted to give them a high probability of success, but there could be unseen problems - they're a commercial partnership, with lots of experience providing services to other commercial ventures, NASA and the ISS, but all three of the companies have also botched provious NASA missions, so they could screw the pooch.)

Axiom is sending new commercial modules to the ISS (Ax-1 is scheduled to go February 2022), with assembly/construction of their own LEO, called Axiom Station, already underway. Axiom Station is about five years out (2027), though they might be able to bring it in. (Dependng on how Ax-1 goes, they've got about a medium probability of being on time/on schedule. They're already well into their mission plan, but they're also scrambling for funding.)

(These are the long shots, with a low probability of successful on time/on schedule)

Orion was attempting to launch their own, with an aggressive time schedule (called the Orion Span). But they ran out of funding in 2021 and are scrambling to raise money, so it is all in limbo now).

Blue Origin plans to send their platform (Orbital Reef) into space by 2030. (I don't know much about this plans progress, Blue Origin has botched deadlines before.)

Orbital Assembly Corporation is planning to begin assembly in space of their Voyager Station in 2025. OAC Voyager will be the beast of the bunch, with a planned capacity of 400 people. Most of the others are "less than 10". (This is the true longshot of the bunch I think - OAC has lots of experience and is well funded, but their plan is really, really ambitious, which sounds to me like "smoke and mirrors to raise more capital", but if they are successful, it will be something to see.)

 

[LupusDei]

I always thought some kind of presence on the moon might be beneficial. Perhaps it would be a good place to put a deep space telescope or maybe some scientific installation. You don't have to put people there, but it would be viable. Landing on the moon isn't as complicated as returning to Earth.

The problem - I'd guess - would be to be the distance. You'd probably spend years just getting a working reservoir of water up there, and that's before you tackle food and an atmosphere. But, again, getting people up there isn't necessary, and you could just bring up what you could when you could each time you went to fix something or add to it.

I say we should look to the moon.

You know, they say, Moon is a harsh mistress... Intriguing, somewhat fun, but ultimately useless.

Seriously, it's a strange place. It has gravity, so it's not at all that interesting for those types of orbital manufacturing (although there might be, at least in theory, as yet unknown specifics to that partial gravity specifically, those are yet to be identified). It could be a great training base before committing for crewed Mars missions. It could even be a refueling depot, eventually, although in terms of delta-V Moon is not that much closer than Mars own moons (what differ greatly is transit time though).

The apparent obsession with telescope on the moon in certain amateur circles is weird. It's a rather terrible idea, technically. True, the far side of the Moon is the place in Solar system best shielded from human radio emissions, but orbiting installation hanging out there is much simpler and more productive. And already a planned mission (although rather unambitious, that).

The surface is dark and dirty. Moon dust seems to engineer's nightmare as if purpose created to destroy equipment, especially moving parts, and the month long nights basically require nuclear energy or full cycle isru fuel. Both require a lot of additional infrastructure.

Moon is most interesting as a staging base for deep space missions, if (and that's a big if) mining and/or manufacturing on Moon can be done cheaper than in low Earth orbit. Since Moon is basically debris from a particularly violent collision between proto Earth and another proto-planet, chances finding something actually very interesting there are minimal, but not zero. Doesn't mean there's nothing useful, just unlikely anything more profitable than rocket fuel (water), at least for now.

We could do some science there, including applicable to future Mars missions there, while closer to home, or rather could, if the initial landings didn't remain just an expensive stunt. Now, at least Elon thinks going directly over make better sense. He might be wrong or just over optimistic and over ambitious. And there's quite a growing interest in Moon, including private, a lot of planned activity in short to mid term already.

(Although the NASA mission as it stands nominally, is just another boots and flags stunt existing primarily to justify tens of billions sunk in the most extreme pork project ever, the so-called Senate Launch System (fully expendable rocket costing minimum $4B a launch -- despite nominaly being built from refurbished shuttle parts --, with optimistic cadence once a year, and of course already a decade over schedule...))

Mars... I don't really get that either. Sure, it's super interesting as a close and relatively easy to explore -- even eventually exploit -- another planet. But it's dead, and reviving it may not be feasible, not to talk about profitable. Even mining... there's places in solar system with methane lakes...

As for a human habitat, Venus of course is a nightmare world on the surface (best Russian built tank of a probe survived some three hours or so), but high in its atmosphere there are regions with Earth surface like temperatures enjoying protection of a natural magnetic field and pressures just high enough for air to be a floating gas. Yes, cloud cities on Venus... much more imaginative, and that's a problem, along with no clear business plan.

 

[pecksniff]

Orbital Assembly Corporation is planning to begin assembly in space of their Voyager Station in 2025. OAC Voyager will be the beast of the bunch, with a planned capacity of 400 people. Most of the others are "less than 10". (This is the true longshot of the bunch I think - OAC has lots of experience and is well funded, but their plan is really, really ambitious, which sounds to me like "smoke and mirrors to raise more capital", but if they are successful, it will be something to see.)

400? It would take a couple of dozen launches just to put that many people into orbit.

Unless they've got some new spaceship design, with larger passenger accommodations than any has had before.

 

[LupusDei]

400? It would take a couple of dozen launches just to put that many people into orbit.

Unless they've got some new spaceship design, with larger passenger accommodations than any has had before.

Just three to eight Starships at airliner configuration. But yeah, that's kind of insane number. As aspirational goal of some theoretical planning max, decades out from launch, well, maybe.

 

[pecksniff]

I always thought some kind of presence on the moon might be beneficial. Perhaps it would be a good place to put a deep space telescope or maybe some scientific installation. You don't have to put people there, but it would be viable. Landing on the moon isn't as complicated as returning to Earth.

The problem - I'd guess - would be to be the distance. You'd probably spend years just getting a working reservoir of water up there, and that's before you tackle food and an atmosphere. But, again, getting people up there isn't necessary, and you could just bring up what you could when you could each time you went to fix something or add to it.

I say we should look to the moon.

I expect the only non-scientific use for the Moon will be as a source of materials to build spaceships and space habitats. There's no reason why they need to be built on Earth.

 

[LupusDei]

I expect the only non-scientific use for the Moon will be as a source of materials to build spaceships and space habitats. There's no reason why they need to be built on Earth.

That reason is cost. Your Moon production should be cheap enough to make for the difference between fuel cost between lofting it from Earth vs Moon surface (to preferred destination, but for comparison purposes giving Moon moderate handicap, say, to Sol centric orbit. (Low Earth orbit would have braking costs from Moon, similar to getting up to Moon orbit from LEO)).