Axiom Space LLC

[high road]

Is there a valid technical reason(read fairing size) they would choose Delta/Atlas launch vehicle(As stated in the article) to fly these modules.. over other cheaper launch providers like SpaceX?

The article didn't say what launch vehicle Axiom will use, I don't think there's any information on this.

The article did say in 2010 NASA considered expanding ISS by launching a Node 4 module on Atlas V or Delta IV, given the plan was made in 2010 when F9 is barely flying it's no surprise they didn't choose SpaceX back then. I think this is just a bit historical trivia, not relevant to the current Axiom situation except that it shows you can expand ISS without Shuttle.

I winder if the extended fairing SpaceX we I’ll develop for the Air Force (wait, now Space Force?) would be of interest to Axiom.

I feel Axiom would gravitate towards SpaceX because a company the size of Axiom, regardless of who they’re in bed with, will need to seriously manage costs and scope creep is a guarantee when working with NASA, so having $$$ margin is important.

Would that even be relevant by 2024?

[Chris Bergin]

Kinda strange there's a Bigelow youtube video embedded in the middle of the article, but ya don't mention Bigelow at all. What's the connection?

Not at all strange, given it was associated with the NextStep para, of which Bigelow's large modules is the latest related article.

[Danirode]

Are there some technical details about the modules?
Also, the new cupola in the renders is huge, how much would it weight?

[Eric Hedman]

Are there some technical details about the modules?
Also, the new cupola in the renders is huge, how much would it weight?

The cupola on the ISS has a mass of 1880 kg (4145 pounds) so at least that and maybe double that.

[ChrisWilson68]

Is there a valid technical reason(read fairing size) they would choose Delta/Atlas launch vehicle(As stated in the article) to fly these modules.. over other cheaper launch providers like SpaceX?

The article didn't say what launch vehicle Axiom will use, I don't think there's any information on this.

The article did say in 2010 NASA considered expanding ISS by launching a Node 4 module on Atlas V or Delta IV, given the plan was made in 2010 when F9 is barely flying it's no surprise they didn't choose SpaceX back then. I think this is just a bit historical trivia, not relevant to the current Axiom situation except that it shows you can expand ISS without Shuttle.

I winder if the extended fairing SpaceX we I’ll develop for the Air Force (wait, now Space Force?) would be of interest to Axiom.

I feel Axiom would gravitate towards SpaceX because a company the size of Axiom, regardless of who they’re in bed with, will need to seriously manage costs and scope creep is a guarantee when working with NASA, so having $$$ margin is important.

They would only be interested in keeping costs down if they have a firm fixed-price contract.  If they're going for something more along the lines of cost-plus, they're incentivized to spend as much as possible.

[Craftyatom]

Unfortunately, the transfer of PMA-2 is not shown and I don't see it on the ISS.

I would imagine that the modules themselves can perform PMA/IDA's job.  These modules will need CBMs to connect to Station, and docking ports so that they can accept crew missions in their free-flying configuration, so there's no reason they can't put both of those to use.

This still doesn't answer the question of what will happen with the PMA/IDA being replaced, but I think it's reasonable to assume that it won't be needed once everything's put together.

Another issue is that, based on the renderings, since the Node gets attached first and doesn't appear to have a docking port of its own, it may need to host PMA briefly, or else Station will only have one docking port for CCP vehicles until the next module arrives, which could be quite a while.

[vaporcobra]

Small FYI: Axiom's website actually has an L- counter for the launch of its first module that equates to NET January 1st, 2024. So it does look like that is still the aspiration.

[meberbs]

They would only be interested in keeping costs down if they have a firm fixed-price contract.  If they're going for something more along the lines of cost-plus, they're incentivized to spend as much as possible.

From what I have looked into, the point of this contract is for demonstration of modules that will remain owned and operated by Axiom. As a result financial contributions from the contractor were expected as part of the proposals. (Specifically, while no minimum contribution was required, it was a factor in the technical merit for proposals.)

In this situation, a cost plus contract would not make sense, it would be firm-fixed price.

[russianhalo117]

Unfortunately, the transfer of PMA-2 is not shown and I don't see it on the ISS.

I would imagine that the modules themselves can perform PMA/IDA's job.  These modules will need CBMs to connect to Station, and docking ports so that they can accept crew missions in their free-flying configuration, so there's no reason they can't put both of those to use.

This still doesn't answer the question of what will happen with the PMA/IDA being replaced, but I think it's reasonable to assume that it won't be needed once everything's put together.

Another issue is that, based on the renderings, since the Node gets attached first and doesn't appear to have a docking port of its own, it may need to host PMA briefly, or else Station will only have one docking port for CCP vehicles until the next module arrives, which could be quite a while.

The graphics we are seeing is artistic licence because they do not show the IDA's. PMA-2/IDA-2 secondary location would N2N as Harmony is the only module presently wired to operate the PMA/IDA's. Not sure if N1N (Unity) cant support DreamChaser/HTV (HTV-X EP Is located on the aft end of its service module and is thus not space constrained for clearance and SSRMS ops and the New EP is MBS POA only) until Rassvet is unloaded of Nauka' s stowed hardware.

[Comga]

When they are done, they have a four module space station with a solar panel less than a quarter the area of the ISS's, (plus the body mounted panels) in a 51.6 degree inclination orbit. 
The reason for that inclination, Russian launches from Baikonur, will be long gone, but the cost and difficulty of launching to that high inclination will remain.
A series of instantaneous plane changes to 28.5 degree would total ~3.3 km/sec, which is enormous.

I think the rate at which the ISS maintains it's orbit is ~0.6 m/sec/month.  Does that sound right?
If we found the final mass we could calculate how much fuel it would take, and estimate how long a Dragon 2 could handle this role. 
Or, after a fixed interval, how much plane change it could effect.

Modules having sufficient propulsion to get to the ISS is not sufficient. 
It will have to do it's own orbit maintenance and attitude control for the entire assembly.
Perhaps keeping a commercial crew vehicle at the aft end could do the orbit maintenance, using the fuel loaded for the LAS. 
Dragon can do that with its interconnected propulsion system pluming and the regular Dracos.  Can Starliner?
But what about air and water supplies?
I don't see a logistics module for this, or for other consumables, a role of Progress on ISS.


PS vaporcobra: Stephen beat you to the 2024-01-01 date, but included a comment that it's no longer the target.
PPS Chriswilson68: Cost plus to whom?  That's not "commercial".  They will have to lower costs, which means Falcon 9 or Heavy for now.  EVERYTHING else not Russian or Chinese is a PowerPoint rocket.

[GWH]

When they are done, they have a four module space station with a solar panel less than a quarter the area of the ISS's, (plus the body mounted panels) in a 51.6 degree inclination orbit. 
The reason for that inclination, Russian launches from Baikonur, will be long gone, but the cost and difficulty of launching to that high inclination will remain.

A high inclination is a feature, not a bug.

Most of the Earth's surface will be under the orbit of that new station, which is great for tourists looking out that big copula and any other Earth observation activities that could generate revenue on board.

[Comga]

When they are done, they have a four module space station with a solar panel less than a quarter the area of the ISS's, (plus the body mounted panels) in a 51.6 degree inclination orbit. 
The reason for that inclination, Russian launches from Baikonur, will be long gone, but the cost and difficulty of launching to that high inclination will remain.

A high inclination is a feature, not a bug.

Most of the Earth's surface will be under the orbit of that new station, which is great for tourists looking out that big copula and any other Earth observation activities that could generate revenue on board.

“If you can’t fix it, sell it”
It’s a bug.
Earth Observation is more efficiently and reliably done from unattended, polar platforms.
“More things to see for tourists” is very weak justification for significantly increased support costs.

[ncb1397]

When they are done, they have a four module space station with a solar panel less than a quarter the area of the ISS's, (plus the body mounted panels) in a 51.6 degree inclination orbit. 
The reason for that inclination, Russian launches from Baikonur, will be long gone, but the cost and difficulty of launching to that high inclination will remain.

A high inclination is a feature, not a bug.

Most of the Earth's surface will be under the orbit of that new station, which is great for tourists looking out that big copula and any other Earth observation activities that could generate revenue on board.

“If you can’t fix it, sell it”
It’s a bug.
Earth Observation is more efficiently and reliably done from unattended, polar platforms.
“More things to see for tourists” is very weak justification for significantly increased support costs.

So, just set up a stereo camera on a polar orbiting satellite and give them some high end VR googles on earth. Charge them half as much - $30 million per trip.

edit: I am only half kidding...

[JasonAW3]

Ok, this might be a dumb question, but...

     How hard would it actually be to boost this segment, after the ISS is retired, into an L-2 Halo orbit?  The only issues I can see, thus far, would be a supply platform, possibly an additional docking more, and something to boost and maintain the orbit, once in place.

   It shouldn't take too much fuel, if you're not in a hurry to get it into place, say about six months to a year travel.

[Lars-J]

When they are done, they have a four module space station with a solar panel less than a quarter the area of the ISS's, (plus the body mounted panels) in a 51.6 degree inclination orbit. 
The reason for that inclination, Russian launches from Baikonur, will be long gone, but the cost and difficulty of launching to that high inclination will remain.

A high inclination is a feature, not a bug.

Most of the Earth's surface will be under the orbit of that new station, which is great for tourists looking out that big copula and any other Earth observation activities that could generate revenue on board.

“If you can’t fix it, sell it”
It’s a bug.
Earth Observation is more efficiently and reliably done from unattended, polar platforms.
“More things to see for tourists” is very weak justification for significantly increased support costs.

The ISS orbit does have a payload penalty, although it is VASTLY exaggerated as a factor in these forums.  If reaching ISS inclination is going to be a problem, then maybe space exploration is not for the entity that cannot.

Besides, the ISS inclination has the very real benefit of being reachable from all prospective HSF launch sites - seems silly to remove a potential future tenant/partner from the pool since private HSF is not exactly booming at the moment.

EDIT: Another side benefit (but important for crew safety) of launch to ISS inclination from KSC/CCAFS is that the launch trajectory follows the eastern seaboard making it easier for rescue forces to reach crew during aborts, vs heading out straight over the Atlantic.

[jbenton]

Ok, this might be a dumb question, but...

     How hard would it actually be to boost this segment, after the ISS is retired, into an L-2 Halo orbit?  The only issues I can see, thus far, would be a supply platform, possibly an additional docking more, and something to boost and maintain the orbit, once in place.

   It shouldn't take too much fuel, if you're not in a hurry to get it into place, say about six months to a year travel.

The original plan for the Gateway Platform was to assemble the modules at the ISS and then detach them as a whole segment, then send them off to Earth-Moon L1 or EML2. IIRC, the original idea of the electric propulsion module was that it was supposed to send take the station to it's destination on it's own power. Alternatively, some form of chemical propulsion was considered (the notional art that I saw looked to me like 2 stacked ACES/Centaur V - class upper stages). It's at least doable, but a more knowledgeable member could tell you how much delta-v it would take.

(Unless, of course, by "L-2", you meant Sun-Earth L2. In that case I am of no help to you)

[Danirode]

   It shouldn't take too much fuel, if you're not in a hurry to get it into place, say about six months to a year travel.

Spending 6 months to a year in a transfer orbit means virtually zero commercial flights to the station for that period, so no revenue...it seems a lot of wasted time for a private station.

[Steven Pietrobon]

They would only be interested in keeping costs down if they have a firm fixed-price contract.  If they're going for something more along the lines of cost-plus, they're incentivized to spend as much as possible.

From what I have looked into, the point of this contract is for demonstration of modules that will remain owned and operated by Axiom. As a result financial contributions from the contractor were expected as part of the proposals. (Specifically, while no minimum contribution was required, it was a factor in the technical merit for proposals.)

In this situation, a cost plus contract would not make sense, it would be firm-fixed price.

NASA has already said the contract is going to be firm-fixed price.

"NASA and Axiom next will begin negotiations on the terms and price of a firm-fixed-price contract with a five-year base performance period and a two-year option."

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-first-commercial-destination-module-for-international-space-station

[Comga]

They would only be interested in keeping costs down if they have a firm fixed-price contract.  If they're going for something more along the lines of cost-plus, they're incentivized to spend as much as possible.

From what I have looked into, the point of this contract is for demonstration of modules that will remain owned and operated by Axiom. As a result financial contributions from the contractor were expected as part of the proposals. (Specifically, while no minimum contribution was required, it was a factor in the technical merit for proposals.)

In this situation, a cost plus contract would not make sense, it would be firm-fixed price.

NASA has already said the contract is going to be firm-fixed price.

"NASA and Axiom next will begin negotiations on the terms and price of a firm-fixed-price contract with a five-year base performance period and a two-year option."

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-first-commercial-destination-module-for-international-space-station

Which means they will use the most cost efficient, proven, large launcher available, which will be Falcon Heavy with 2X RTLS & ASDS.

[ncb1397]

Which means they will use the most cost efficient, proven, large launcher available, which will be Falcon Heavy with 2X RTLS & ASDS.

Looking more into this, I believe the first launch with the module and the cupola is too big for the current Falcon family fairing. That might have to go on a vehicle designed for dual GTO launches like Ariane 6/Vulcan/New Glenn/etc.. The other launches are pretty tight but from the CG renderings, should fit.

Here is a mockup I did with one of the modules inside the Falcon fairing (the modules appear to be same diameter as ISS modules at 4.2 meters). Putting the AxEO module(the cupola) on top looks to be problematic.