Axiom Space LLC

[ncb1397]

After looking at the resources that Axiom has published, this appears to be the assembly sequence...

1.)flight 1- AxN1 + AxEO
2.)flight 2- AxH1 + robotic arm
3.)flight 3- AxRMF
4.)flight 4- AxPTM
5.)MPLM Leonardo move and conversion to AxPLM module
6.)ISS disconnection
7.)flight 5- AxN2
8.)move AxRMF and MPLM/AxPLM to AxN2
9.)flight 6- AxH2

Below is the end state with all the modules labeled for reference. 6 flights suggests ballpark $600 million in launch costs although the basic configuration is only 4 flights.

[GWH]

Here is the official roadmap from Axiom:

https://twitter.com/Axiom_Space/status/1223292589316739072


TLDR:
2021-2023 flights with commercial providers for national and private spaceflights
2024: 1st module and big copula
2025: 2nd module, capacity for 8(!) astronauts
2026: 3rd module in space manufacturing research
2027: 4th module, power, radiators, EVA capabilities
2028: self sustaining space station for 16(!!!)

[Lars-J]

So Axioms hardware appears to be Boeing's take on the Soviet TKS and DOS blocks, essentially? (each module as self-contained spacecraft)

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Image attached

Here is the official roadmap from Axiom:

twitter.com/Axiom_Space/status/1223292589316739072


TLDR:
2021-2023 flights with commercial providers for national and private spaceflights
2024: 1st module and big copula
2025: 2nd module, capacity for 8(!) astronauts
2026: 3rd module in space manufacturing research
2027: 4th module, power, radiators, EVA capabilities
2028: self sustaining space station for 16(!!!)

[GWH]

Main Engine Cutoff podcast interview with Mike Suffredini, Axiom's president & CEO:
https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/147

[Tulse]

Has Axiom said anything about launch vehicles and crew transport? Since they are partnered with Boeing I presume that crew would go up in Starliner, but perhaps not...

[Lars-J]

Has Axiom said anything about launch vehicles and crew transport? Since they are partnered with Boeing I presume that crew would go up in Starliner, but perhaps not...

If Axiom has any smarts, they should keep Boeing at arms length. I listened to the MECO interview, and Suffredini was very vague about Boeing's involvement.

I get the distinct feeling that Boeing was involved to give them some old space "muscle" and "credibility"  with NASA, but if it is anything more they are laying low about it at this moment. (They are after all contracting directly with Being's sub-contractor for the space station module structures)

[HeartofGold2030]

Has Axiom said anything about launch vehicles and crew transport? Since they are partnered with Boeing I presume that crew would go up in Starliner, but perhaps not...

If Axiom has any smarts, they should keep Boeing at arms length. I listened to the MECO interview, and Suffredini was very vague about Boeing's involvement.

I get the distinct feeling that Boeing was involved to give them some old space "muscle" and "credibility"  with NASA, but if it is anything more they are laying low about it at this moment. (They are after all contracting directly with Being's sub-contractor for the space station module structures)

People forget that Boeing are not only the contractor for the US-segment of the ISS, but responsible for the NASA Docking System and International Docking Adaptors as well. If you want to attach anything to the ISS, you should probably converse with Boeing about it first. It wouldn't surprise me if Boeing are subcontracted to provide the docking hardware for the Axiom modules; Thales Italy (who build the Cygnus vessel) are also involved, so I bet they'll be responsible for manufacturing the module structures.

[Lars-J]

Has Axiom said anything about launch vehicles and crew transport? Since they are partnered with Boeing I presume that crew would go up in Starliner, but perhaps not...

If Axiom has any smarts, they should keep Boeing at arms length. I listened to the MECO interview, and Suffredini was very vague about Boeing's involvement.

I get the distinct feeling that Boeing was involved to give them some old space "muscle" and "credibility"  with NASA, but if it is anything more they are laying low about it at this moment. (They are after all contracting directly with Being's sub-contractor for the space station module structures)

People forget that Boeing are not only the contractor for the US-segment of the ISS, but responsible for the NASA Docking System and International Docking Adaptors as well. If you want to attach anything to the ISS, you should probably converse with Boeing about it first. It wouldn't surprise me if Boeing are subcontracted to provide the docking hardware for the Axiom modules; Thales Italy (who build the Cygnus vessel) are also involved, so I bet they'll be responsible for manufacturing the module structures.

You make good points, but I do suspect familiarity played a HUGE part of this as well. Boeing was a prime contractor for the US segment of ISS and Suffredini has worked with them for decades, and they no doubt have lots of capability.

But... with recent Boeing issues, I hope they don't rely on them too closely, treat them with the same skepticism you would for other contractors. Trust but verify. Don't let Boeing take control of this project. So it is encouraging that they are going straight to Thales for the structures instead of going through Boeing, because I want Axiom to succeed.

[TrevorMonty]

Main Engine Cutoff podcast interview with Mike Suffredini, Axiom's president & CEO:
https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/147

Lot in this interview.

Axiom will start commercial private astronaut missions to ISS within next two years, maybe next year. Didn't say which crew vehicle, probably one with best price. Enough demand for 2 missions a year. Vehicle needs to carry all crews supplies for stay. I'm guessing odd NASA supplies too, especially emergency spares.

They have two different customers, private (tourist) astronauts, with basic survival training and sovereign astronauts which will be trained to NASA standards and maybe even do EVAs.

First module in place 2024 with other two following close behind ie 6-12months apart.
Each module is self contain spaceship, with power, propulsion, ECLSS etc. Will make their own way to ISS after being delivered to orbit. In an emergency could separate from ISS and go it alone for while with reduce crew capacity. Gives ISS another liveboat besides crew vehicles.

Power module would be added year out from scheduled separation from ISS ie ISS end of life.

[jarmumd]

People forget that Boeing are not only the contractor for the US-segment of the ISS, but responsible for the NASA Docking System and International Docking Adaptors as well. If you want to attach anything to the ISS, you should probably converse with Boeing about it first. It wouldn't surprise me if Boeing are subcontracted to provide the docking hardware for the Axiom modules; Thales Italy (who build the Cygnus vessel) are also involved, so I bet they'll be responsible for manufacturing the module structures.

Not entirely accurate.  SpaceX builds their own docking mechanism to the IDSS spec, it is not the NDS-B1 mechanism.  Your statement is true for the passive mechanism side, although it would not be difficult for SpaceX to make a passive side.

[whitelancer64]

People forget that Boeing are not only the contractor for the US-segment of the ISS, but responsible for the NASA Docking System and International Docking Adaptors as well. If you want to attach anything to the ISS, you should probably converse with Boeing about it first. It wouldn't surprise me if Boeing are subcontracted to provide the docking hardware for the Axiom modules; Thales Italy (who build the Cygnus vessel) are also involved, so I bet they'll be responsible for manufacturing the module structures.

Not entirely accurate.  SpaceX builds their own docking mechanism to the IDSS spec, it is not the NDS-B1 mechanism.  Your statement is true for the passive mechanism side, although it would not be difficult for SpaceX to make a passive side.

As I understand it, part of the IDSS standard is that it can operate in either active or passive mode. I'm not sure if the IDAs are built to be only passive.

[soltasto]

People forget that Boeing are not only the contractor for the US-segment of the ISS, but responsible for the NASA Docking System and International Docking Adaptors as well. If you want to attach anything to the ISS, you should probably converse with Boeing about it first. It wouldn't surprise me if Boeing are subcontracted to provide the docking hardware for the Axiom modules; Thales Italy (who build the Cygnus vessel) are also involved, so I bet they'll be responsible for manufacturing the module structures.

Not entirely accurate.  SpaceX builds their own docking mechanism to the IDSS spec, it is not the NDS-B1 mechanism.  Your statement is true for the passive mechanism side, although it would not be difficult for SpaceX to make a passive side.

As I understand it, part of the IDSS standard is that it can operate in either active or passive mode. I'm not sure if the IDAs are built to be only passive.

IDAs are passive only. But active ports can be passive by design. The other way around is not possible.

[brickmack]

IDAs are passive only. But active ports can be passive by design. The other way around is not possible.

Active ports *can* have passive support, but do not necessarily support it. The port on Starliner lacks some features needed for passive use. I'd expect Axiom wants passive support as well, just for maximum future flexibility

Not entirely accurate.  SpaceX builds their own docking mechanism to the IDSS spec

Has this been confirmed? I know they were offered ports as government-furnished (Boeing manufactured) equipment

Anyway, IDS is not so complicated as to force Boeing involvement. Europe, Japan, and Russia have all proposed domestic production of IDS ports. If Thales builds the modules anyway, get QinetiQ to supply IBDMs

[jarmumd]

As I understand it, part of the IDSS standard is that it can operate in either active or passive mode. I'm not sure if the IDAs are built to be only passive.

Correct, but no current mechanism meets that part of the standard.  NDS-Block 2 may be able to, I haven't see it for sure yet.

[jarmumd]

IDAs are passive only. But active ports can be passive by design. The other way around is not possible.

Active ports *can* have passive support, but do not necessarily support it. The port on Starliner lacks some features needed for passive use. I'd expect Axiom wants passive support as well, just for maximum future flexibility

Not entirely accurate.  SpaceX builds their own docking mechanism to the IDSS spec

Has this been confirmed? I know they were offered ports as government-furnished (Boeing manufactured) equipment

Anyway, IDS is not so complicated as to force Boeing involvement. Europe, Japan, and Russia have all proposed domestic production of IDS ports. If Thales builds the modules anyway, get QinetiQ to supply IBDMs

I mean, I'm confirming it.  There are a few caveats that they didn't design everything from scratch, but they did build all of it, and their attenuation system is completely new/different than NDS-B1.

[AnalogMan]

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

NASA announced the Contract award today (February 28, 2020)

Contract Award Number: 80JSC020D0017
Base and All Options Value (Total Contract Value): $140m

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/f2dbbe9ab9604d2ab1dfe5d522d8dd55/view

[GWH]

That really isn't a lot of $$$, good on Axiom if they can make a viable business with outside customers.

[ncb1397]

That really isn't a lot of $$$, good on Axiom if they can make a viable business with outside customers.

Just showing some buy in from a $23 billion dollar agency will help with investment to build the station. People know there is potentially a lot more where that came from. I could see the space agency renting out space on Axiom when it isn't being used. That isn't probably included in this contract. COTS also had a certain amount of money that was injected into it after the initial contract. That could happen here.

[ChrisWilson68]

That really isn't a lot of $$$,

$140 million sounds like a lot of money to me.  Just think how many grad students in engineering and sciences could be funded by that.

Instead, NASA gives it to a group of former NASA people to try to help them make even more money in a private business with no other current customers or strong evidence of future customers.  It's shameful.

I want to be clear that I'm not saying that anyone involved has purposely selfish motives.  But it's still very wrong.

good on Axiom if they can make a viable business with outside customers.

There's no good evidence significant outside customers will materialize.

I get the argument that it's good for the government to help finance companies early on so that they can be commercial successes later on.  But why this company instead of any of the tens of thousands of other technology companies out there that could badly use this kind of help?  The real reason is that the people at this companies are buddies with the people at NASA making the decisions to fund them.

It's disgraceful.