Axiom Space LLC

[meberbs]

The real reason is that the people at this companies are buddies with the people at NASA making the decisions to fund them.

This statement is equal to an assertion of gross violations of anti-corruption laws regarding government contracting. Such assertions should not be made lightly or without evidence.

NASA put out a bid for any company interested in building space stations, because NASA does not in the future want to rely on building and operating stations themselves, and any amount of use by other customers would help reduce the total amount paid by NASA. This company won the contract fair and square, and there is one more proposal coming up for a related contract (but free flying instead of starting based on the ISS.) There are not too many companies interested in this particular market, so no big surprise on the winner, there were only a couple other reasonable options, at least one of which declined to bid.

[ChrisWilson68]

The real reason is that the people at this companies are buddies with the people at NASA making the decisions to fund them.

This statement is equal to an assertion of gross violations of anti-corruption laws regarding government contracting.

I disagree.  There are a lot of bad practices that are not violations of the law.

Such assertions should not be made lightly or without evidence.

NASA put out a bid for any company interested in building space stations, because NASA does not in the future want to rely on building and operating stations themselves, and any amount of use by other customers would help reduce the total amount paid by NASA. This company won the contract fair and square, and there is one more proposal coming up for a related contract (but free flying instead of starting based on the ISS.) There are not too many companies interested in this particular market, so no big surprise on the winner, there were only a couple other reasonable options, at least one of which declined to bid.

I don't believe this bid would have been put out if the people writing the bid didn't already know about Axiom.

[brickmack]

Axiom was the only bid that actually offered something vaguely like what NASA was looking for (a commercial pressurized module). SNC, Boeing, Lockheed, Nanoracks, Blue, Bigelow, and Northrop all did studies, but none actually submitted a bid, they're waiting for the freeflier contract and basically didn't consider ISS worthwhile. There can't have been unfair bias towards Axiom when there was no alternative to start with

[meberbs]

The real reason is that the people at this companies are buddies with the people at NASA making the decisions to fund them.

This statement is equal to an assertion of gross violations of anti-corruption laws regarding government contracting.

I disagree.  There are a lot of bad practices that are not violations of the law.

The words you wrote if true would be the definition of something illegal. In many real cases it would be hard to prove in court, unless they did something like write what you said into the award justification. (Congress of course has loopholes, because they write the laws, but this isn't that situation.) What you wrote is no less than accusing the contract officials of criminal behavior when you have no evidence of such.

I don't believe this bid would have been put out if the people writing the bid didn't already know about Axiom.

Multiple other companies have expressed interest in attaching commercial modules to the ISS. Given that there is only one slot at the ISS, it seems other companies may have decided to just wait for the free-flyer contract, but if Axiom didn't exist, those other companies would still exist, and be capable of fulfilling NASA's goals with this contract, and have interest in doing so.

[high road]

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 currentcustomers or strong evidence of future customers.  It's shameful.

So you're saying NASA should focus on getting more people STEM degrees by funding more degree-earning studies that never go anywhere, rather than providing seed money for new industries? All major universities in my country are trying to do the reverse, as there is already a ton of interesting ideas that never makes it beyond dissertations and the like. New ideas need considerable incubation before they become economical.

And 'no other customers'... So there are no cubesats being released from the station, no research being done by private companies? No research being done with NASA funding that could eventually benefit from a more affordable space station? ZBLAN production isn't going to become feasible you think? etc... Is all that worth 140 million? Well, if anyone can point me to some credible numbers, I'd love to crunch 'em ;-)

[ChrisWilson68]

The real reason is that the people at this companies are buddies with the people at NASA making the decisions to fund them.

This statement is equal to an assertion of gross violations of anti-corruption laws regarding government contracting.

I disagree.  There are a lot of bad practices that are not violations of the law.

The words you wrote if true would be the definition of something illegal. In many real cases it would be hard to prove in court, unless they did something like write what you said into the award justification. (Congress of course has loopholes, because they write the laws, but this isn't that situation.) What you wrote is no less than accusing the contract officials of criminal behavior when you have no evidence of such.

I don't believe this bid would have been put out if the people writing the bid didn't already know about Axiom.

Multiple other companies have expressed interest in attaching commercial modules to the ISS. Given that there is only one slot at the ISS, it seems other companies may have decided to just wait for the free-flyer contract, but if Axiom didn't exist, those other companies would still exist, and be capable of fulfilling NASA's goals with this contract, and have interest in doing so.

Imagine this scenario.  A group of people work for decades together on a project.  They become emotional invested in it.  They talk so much together about it that they end up aligned on what direction it should go.

But then it becomes clear that the project won't go on forever as a government project.  Some leave.  The ones that leave form a company to try to continue the project in the private sector.  But their plan can't work without some government help.  Others are still in the government.  They also think it's vitally important that the project continue.

Because they were buddies, their interested and opinions align.  They all think it's in everyone's interest for the government to fund the company.  They all know the company is the best choice to get things done the way they all believe they should be done.  The ones still in government get a contract in place that the company is best suited to win.

This is a scenario that exactly fits what I said -- the real reason that the company got the contract was that their buddies were the ones in government funding it.  But nobody believed they did anything wrong.  They all honestly believe this is the best way forward and it just happens that their buddies have the company that is best positioned for that way forward.

If you think that violates a law, you tell me exactly what that law is.

People in government making decisions about what programs to develop are people, not robots.  It's impossible for people not to be swayed by interactions with other people.  It's impossible for them not to be swayed by shared experiences, by personal feelings.  People are human.  Their decision making is going to be more favorable to people they have a shared history with.

I know someone working for one of the largest aerospace contractors.  That person told me directly that within the company it was well known that the path to rise within the company was to bring money in by establishing relationships with people in government and convincing them to fund contracts for the company.

Even when I was in academia I saw the same thing.  Professors had to work hard to influence the people at DARPA and NSF who decided on grants to fund research.  You could have the best research ideas, but if you neglected to be establish good relationships with the people in government who made the decisions, you would not get the grants.

People are not unbiased automatons.

[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 currentcustomers or strong evidence of future customers.  It's shameful.

So you're saying NASA should focus on getting more people STEM degrees by funding more degree-earning studies that never go anywhere,

I do not share your dismissal of the value of academic research.  The research itself provides the foundations on which commercial products are eventually made.  And even aside from that, many of the grad students who are trained then use that training in the commercial world.

rather than providing seed money for new industries?

That is correct.  I think it is better for the government to spend money on academic research and training rather than picking winners and losers among companies.

All major universities in my country are trying to do the reverse, as there is already a ton of interesting ideas that never makes it beyond dissertations and the like. New ideas need considerable incubation before they become economical.

In Silicon Valley, where I live, there is a staggering number of innovative companies trying new ideas.  Nearly all of them count on the private sector to provide their funding.  That system works incredibly well.  Far more innovation comes out of Silicon Valley than out of all those countries that concentrate instead on having the government try to pick winners and losers among companies to fund.

And 'no other customers'... So there are no cubesats being released from the station, no research being done by private companies?

None that is worth anywhere close to the high cost of the ISS.  The government has been trying for years to commercialize the ISS.  It's been an embarrassing failure.  They've only managed to get companies to pay for a tiny fraction of the operating costs of ISS.

No research being done with NASA funding that could eventually benefit from a more affordable space station? ZBLAN production isn't going to become feasible you think? etc...

If it's worth the cost, investors will fund it.  Huge sums have flowed into venture capital firms in recent years.  They have a big problem trying to find investments for it all.  It's true.  If there were a private station with a remotely reasonable business plan, venture capital would fund it.  I mean, just look at Spin Launch -- that company is completely implausible and yet they still got investor funding.

Is all that worth 140 million? Well, if anyone can point me to some credible numbers, I'd love to crunch 'em ;-)

This $140 million doesn't give a station.  It gives a small addition to a station that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

This contract is supposed to jump-start a fully-private station.  But that's a fantasy.  It would cost billions more to transition from this to a fully-private station.  The $140 is just a start.

[high road]

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 currentcustomers or strong evidence of future customers.  It's shameful.

So you're saying NASA should focus on getting more people STEM degrees by funding more degree-earning studies that never go anywhere,

I do not share your dismissal of the value of academic research.  The research itself provides the foundations on which commercial products are eventually made.  And even aside from that, many of the grad students who are trained then use that training in the commercial world.

It's not disdain, but legitimate frustration from my postdoc friends (mostly in chemistry) that so many of their past research projects never went further because they required expensive hardware to be built before it could be tested whether the research project could be done economically on an industrial scale.

rather than providing seed money for new industries?

That is correct.  I think it is better for the government to spend money on academic research and training rather than picking winners and losers among companies.

Agreed. But opening a bid to all competitors for something where there have been a lot of claims that it could be successful if it could be done more affordably by private companies, is hardly 'picking winners'. Plus, as you say in your other posts, it's pretty much standard practice to lobby to have the bid adapted to the other proposals.

All major universities in my country are trying to do the reverse, as there is already a ton of interesting ideas that never makes it beyond dissertations and the like. New ideas need considerable incubation before they become economical.

In Silicon Valley, where I live, there is a staggering number of innovative companies trying new ideas.  Nearly all of them count on the private sector to provide their funding.  That system works incredibly well.  Far more innovation comes out of Silicon Valley than out of all those countries that concentrate instead on having the government try to pick winners and losers among companies to fund.

Yes, and the rest of the world where that is not the way things work, is trying to emulate that. Purely private attempts have not been that successful, in my country at least. Private-government cooperation is spawning plenty of new companies that would otherwise not have existed or failed early. As far as I know, the part of the selection process that is done by the university (most of the selection process being indeed finding funding from various government or private sources), is just as rigorous (or prone to lobbying) as private companies.

And 'no other customers'... So there are no cubesats being released from the station, no research being done by private companies?

None that is worth anywhere close to the high cost of the ISS.  The government has been trying for years to commercialize the ISS.  It's been an embarrassing failure.  They've only managed to get companies to pay for a tiny fraction of the operating costs of ISS.

No research being done with NASA funding that could eventually benefit from a more affordable space station? ZBLAN production isn't going to become feasible you think? etc...

If it's worth the cost, investors will fund it.  Huge sums have flowed into venture capital firms in recent years.  They have a big problem trying to find investments for it all.  It's true.  If there were a private station with a remotely reasonable business plan, venture capital would fund it.  I mean, just look at Spin Launch -- that company is completely implausible and yet they still got investor funding.

Well, funding vaporware is comparatively easy. Now that the US military funded them, maybe they get beyond that. It's the hardware that costs the amounts of money that investors hesitate to put up. One does wonder what rigorous selection protocols, rather than lobbying, the military uses to select a company like Spin Launch.

Is all that worth 140 million? Well, if anyone can point me to some credible numbers, I'd love to crunch 'em ;-)

This $140 million doesn't give a station.  It gives a small addition to a station that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

This contract is supposed to jump-start a fully-private station.  But that's a fantasy.  It would cost billions more to transition from this to a fully-private station.  The $140 is just a start.

The claim is that the ISS is impossible to run cheap because it's designed and run by governments. While private companies don't want to risk the massive initial investment to build and launch a station with no experience designing, launching and operating a station, and without an anchor tenant. The current proposal pays them for the design and launching part, the ability to intervene relatively cheaply if they screwed up something in the design, the promise of an anchor tenant at the start, and the ability to get the required experience for operating a space station. While still requiring the private company to put up most of the money. Adressing needs and making it easier for companies to enter the market (assuming they do a proposal) is hardly 'picking winners'.

[meberbs]

Imagine this scenario.

In your imagined scenario you conflate 2 different things, a company winning a contract because they did a good job aligning their business with government needs, and a company winning a contract because the contract was deliberately manipulated for them to win "because the people at this companies are buddies." You do not have to be direct buddies with the government people to recognize their needs and adapt your business plan to them.

They all honestly believe this is the best way forward and it just happens that their buddies have the company that is best positioned for that way forward.

Then this is not an example of them winning "because the people at this companies are buddies"

If you think that violates a law, you tell me exactly what that law is.

As I believe you are aware, it is called Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) that would prohibit a contract award for the original reason you claimed. It is specifically built in with independence, reviews required justifications, etc to prevent manipulation and minimize bias. The rest of your post just ignores that.

[QuantumG]

As I believe you are aware, it is called Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) that would prohibit a contract award for the original reason you claimed. It is specifically built in with independence, reviews required justifications, etc to prevent manipulation and minimize bias. The rest of your post just ignores that.

None of which works because there's human beings involved.

[meberbs]

As I believe you are aware, it is called Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) that would prohibit a contract award for the original reason you claimed. It is specifically built in with independence, reviews required justifications, etc to prevent manipulation and minimize bias. The rest of your post just ignores that.

None of which works because there's human beings involved.

I said "minimize bias" for a reason. But that is starting to turn this into an entirely different discussion than the original point.

[gongora]

This discussion on motivations for the contract has run its course.  Let's get back on the topic of what Axiom is actually doing.

[Confusador]

Apparently what they're actually doing is trying to compete with Space Adventures.

https://www.axiomspace.com/post/axiom-space-plans-first-ever-fully-private-human-spaceflight-mission-to-international-space-station

EDIT: Discussion of the proposed 2021 flight to ISS is probably best in the dedicated mission thread.

[GWH]

Flying astronauts by acting as a broker is a step forward towards lining up customers to their own station.

It's competing with space adventures while also maintaining a more narrow focus due to the destination vs SA's high orbit for their proposed flight.

Similar service near term, different long term goals.

[pochimax]

Any idea how much money will have to pay NASA in order to use the Axiom module?

I understand this 140 millions doesn' t cover using the module, isn't it?

[mainmind]

Axiom is now listing job openings in 12 different disciplines across a variety of experience levels:

The tweet:
https://twitter.com/Axiom_Space/status/1250484030308446208

And the listings page linked in the tweet:
https://app.trinethire.com/companies/31021-axiom-space-inc/jobs/23620-engineers-various-teams-levels-i-levels-v

All positions are in Houston. Strange time to start a hiring run but the timeline for their module is very short... first launch in H2 2024 according to the SpaceNews article about it last January. https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-axiom-space-to-build-commercial-space-station-module/

[Norm38]

Since this station starts out attached to the US section of ISS, and has power/cooling comparable to ISS, I have to ask, is it technically possible to take some of the labs with them?  Could they supply power, etc to those modules?  Is there any reason to, to keep those resources on orbit?

Or do they have no choice but to cast off all of it?

[Eerie]

Since this station starts out attached to the US section of ISS, and has power/cooling comparable to ISS, I have to ask, is it technically possible to take some of the labs with them?  Could they supply power, etc to those modules?  Is there any reason to, to keep those resources on orbit?

Or do they have no choice but to cast off all of it?

AFAIR, in the interview with Mike Suffredini on MECO podcast (https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/147), he says the plan is to take a lot of stuff from ISS when it is deorbited.

[yg1968]

https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1268258651279708162

Axiom Space CEO Mike Suffredini said his company's private trip to the ISS with SpaceX is scheduled for October 2021, so Demo-2 helped "our customers know that it's going to be real."

Axiom plans to announce the 3 passengers in a month or so.

[Lars-J]

Since this station starts out attached to the US section of ISS, and has power/cooling comparable to ISS, I have to ask, is it technically possible to take some of the labs with them?  Could they supply power, etc to those modules?  Is there any reason to, to keep those resources on orbit?

Or do they have no choice but to cast off all of it?

It is technically possible, but probably impractical to disconnect any of of the core US modules. They will also have been exposed to space for over 20 years, and the systems only have a certain lifetime. It is probably more trouble than it is worth.