The first commercial space station, Haven-1, is now undergoing assembly for launch

"We have a very strong incentive to send a crew as quickly as we can safely do so."

See full article...

 

[JohnDeL]

This looks like a very nice successor to the ISS; I hope that it flies on schedule and everything goes as planned (or better).

I look forward to watching it fly overhead in the night sky!

 

[quamquam quid loquor]

The profit motive is going to kill these poor people...

Poor engineering and management is what kills people, not a profit motive.

You can have that in a for-profit and not-for-profit environment.

 

[sbradford26]

Somehow 3 year feels like a long lifetime for a first attempt and at the same time a very short lifetime. I would be interested in what their goal/projected lifespan is for Haven-2. If you can launch new stations regularly at a lower cost you probably don't need to design them to the same level as the ISS.

 

[Dan Corcoran]

I am so excited for the team putting this together. Just wondering if it needs much more fly, fail, fix, repeat designed in to the plan, you know hardware rich, to have a 50/50 chance at 2030 timeframe of being NASA ready. Are space stations different to not do the same as SpaceX?

 

[Malmesbury]

Poor engineering and management is what kills people, not a profit motive.

You can have that in a for-profit and not-for-profit environment.

“Haot: I’m a vendor, and obviously I’d like as much buffer as possible, and as much funding as possible. With the current budget we don’t think more than two winners is reasonable, but it should absolutely be two in the best interest of the country. If there was a bigger budget, obviously, three would be great. And so if you look at the CLD budget line, which is approved for next year—projected over five years for development, and you assume two winners, and then services that come later—we are confident we can be successful and profitable with two companies operating.”

Imagine Boing or LockMart advocating for competition. Rather than “Gimme everything on a cost plus”

And that feeds back into safety. Boeing failed with Starliner. And to their surprise, it wasn’t just another BuyBoeingAnyway.

Boeing only survived the 737 MAX because there are no alternatives - Airbus is booked for decades. So if the airlines cancelled they have nothing else to buy.

It must have been a shock to find that they are being relegated to hauling T-shirts and Tang…

If these guys fuck up, it won’t be just a congressional enquiry, some people retiring and then back to business (See Apollo 204 onwards).

 

[Dan Corcoran]

Great article. An idea for a future interview "How would you handle a Starship docking?. or "Had you thought to design for a Starship docking, seeking to get SpaceX to be a customer rather than a vendor?"

 

[DistinctivelyCanuck]

It's funny that none of these companies ever mention whether or not "adult entertainment" plays an explicit role in their business plans. Because if we're behind honest, blackjack and hookers is probably where the money is.

hundred mile high club would probably make them a bunch of money too.

/s

 

[Tinolyn]

This is probably a stupid question. Why hasn't NASA and these companies considered replacing parts of the ISS on a rotating basis, instead of an all-or-nothing station?

NASA could Ship of Theseus the ISS that way, sort of anyway.

 

[Cart_catalog]

Will they de-orbit Haven-1 at end of life, or will they add onto it? Or just space junk?

 

[Mr. Vapor]

This is probably a stupid question. Why hasn't NASA and these companies considered replacing parts of the ISS on a rotating basis, instead of an all-or-nothing station?

NASA could Ship of Theseus the ISS that way, sort of anyway.

I've always wondered this too.

I assume NASA, being full of smart people, there's a really good reason (maybe many) why not. But it would be interesting to know those reasons out of curiosity.

 

[sbradford26]

This is probably a stupid question. Why hasn't NASA and these companies considered replacing parts of the ISS on a rotating basis, instead of an all-or-nothing station?

NASA could Ship of Theseus the ISS that way, sort of anyway.

So I think largely the ISS was designed to be expanded but wasn't designed to be fully replaceable/upgradable like that. The root portions of the ISS would be very complex to replace due to having to replace a bunch of functionality that those root modules are providing. I think that design philosophy of being able to upgrade or replace any module would be popular for the ISS replacement.

 

[DistinctivelyCanuck]

I've always wondered this too.

I assume NASA, being full of smart people, there's a really good reason (maybe many) why not. But it would be interesting to know those reasons out of curiosity.

There's a video online that shows the overall assembly sequence of the space station over the decades:
to "ship of theseus" the ISS would be all but impossible because of the dependencies between components.
I mean, lets just pick a random thing: how do you replace one of the central pieces of the truss?
How do you replace the Unity node?
Replace Zarya?

MAYBE you can pick off pieces like Kibo or Columbus... but not a lot.

Here's another way of imagining this. Think of the ISS like a multi-story building.
In a multi-story building you can't just go "darn, the third floor just isn't quite what I wanted, I want to slide it out and put in a new third floor"
ISS: Same thing.


EDIT: pointer to the GIF in question:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/ISS-assembly-animation.gif

 

[killswitch1984]

This is probably a stupid question. Why hasn't NASA and these companies considered replacing parts of the ISS on a rotating basis, instead of an all-or-nothing station?

NASA could Ship of Theseus the ISS that way, sort of anyway.

One specific reason is the truss system for the ISS. These are some of the oldest components of the station and most in need of replacement, yet are so integrated with everything that replacement in situ would require taking most of the station apart. There are other integrated components that cause similar headaches, even if modules or discrete components like the solar panels could be replaced.

 

[mbedford84]

Those two workers in the headline picture the bottom right need to raise there game. Seem to have enough free time that they can play some sort of elaborate wire loop game right next to the hardware.....

I'm all for having time to relax, but c'mon, not whilst the boss has photographers in!

 

[Speakertoanimals]

There's a video online that shows the overall assembly sequence of the space station over the decades:
to "ship of theseus" the ISS would be all but impossible because of the dependencies between components.
I mean, lets just pick a random thing: how do you replace one of the central pieces of the truss?
How do you replace the Unity node?
Replace Zarya?

MAYBE you can pick off pieces like Kibo or Columbus... but not a lot.

Here's another way of imagining this. Think of the ISS like a multi-story building.
In a multi-story building you can't just go "darn, the third floor just isn't quite what I wanted, I want to slide it out and put in a new third floor"
ISS: Same thing.


EDIT: pointer to the GIF in question:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/ISS-assembly-animation.gif

Another analogy might be a car. "We need to replace the frame and cabin wiring harness. While leaving the car operational cuz I have to still use it for my commute."

 

[DrewW]

hundred mile high club would probably make them a bunch of money too.

/s

Microgravity plus the cardio effects of viagra plus the horrible physical conditioning of most billionaires makes it super risky for sex tourism; imagine the PR nightmare of a stiff Elon corpse with a stiffy bouncing off the walls of Haven 1 while NASA admins panic a la Death of Stalin.

 

[ranthog]

One specific reason is the truss system for the ISS. These are some of the oldest components of the station and most in need of replacement, yet are so integrated with everything that replacement in situ would require taking most of the station apart. There are other integrated components that cause similar headaches, even if modules or discrete components like the solar panels could be replaced.

I would argue even trying to design that modularity into a station which was the mating of a US and Russian design would have been very difficult and possibly disasterously foolish.

In the end, we also were at the point where space stations all had some very serious longevity problems. The ISS has held up significantly better than its predecessors did.

There are bits of infrastructure that likely could use improvements for experiments, or even crew comfort like reducing noise levels. Stuff that would be very messy to do in the existing station.

I'm not sure if we're quite to the point where you don't want to just throw away a station when you're done with it.

 

[TroyM]

As someone who watched every launch and assembly mission of the ISS, I would say it has proven to be of little to no value when it comes to the usual justifications of "in-space semiconductor, fiber, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and so on". These are bogus arguments. I would much rather NASA focus on Artemis instead of worrying about Skylab 2.0.
That being said, if it happens, I will be checking Heavens Above for flyovers.

A space station gives astronauts somewhere to go. It's also great for studying the effects of long term spaceflight on humans. I agree that the in-space manufacturing claims are bogus.

 

[ranthog]

As someone who watched every launch and assembly mission of the ISS, I would say it has proven to be of little to no value when it comes to the usual justifications of "in-space semiconductor, fiber, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and so on". These are bogus arguments. I would much rather NASA focus on Artemis instead of worrying about Skylab 2.0.
That being said, if it happens, I will be checking Heavens Above for flyovers.

Not all Shuttle and ISS experiments have been commercially successful. So far, a lot of the material science manufacturing ones have not yet born fruit. Commercial viability should not be be understood to be the end all be all of these ventures. (There have been plenty of things which the Shuttle and ISS have done experimentally that are in commercial use today.)

I think those commercial ventures for things like manufacturing in space are more likely to occur as launch costs fall. In the long term, for sustainable deep space habitation, space based manufacturing has to occur. You don't get there without doing the types of research the Shuttle and ISS could facilitate.

We are still learning a lot of things from the science being done on there. It is worthwhile continuing to have a laboratory in space to do pure research.


For deep space exploration, the value of the ISS has been huge. The ISS has been a laboratory for testing new life support methodologies that have helped to improve life support efficiency greatly. Something that is going to be critical for any mission to the Moon or Mars when you need to carry years worth of supplies.

On top of that, we've gotten a lot of practice handling medical stuff remotely, with station personal able to handle things that would have once required evacuation.

Not to mention the studies on long term micro-g living and methods to counter that. It doesn't do you any good to get to Mars if you are too weak to operate on the surface independently when you get there.

Living in space is hard.

 

[DistinctivelyCanuck]

Microgravity plus the cardio effects of viagra plus the horrible physical conditioning of most billionaires makes it super risky for sex tourism; imagine the PR nightmare of a stiff Elon corpse with a stiffy bouncing off the walls of Haven 1 while NASA admins panic a la Death of Stalin.

shove the stiff out the airlock. Problem solved.
NEXT!

 

[stefan_lec]

I like Vast, they seem very focused and well-run, with good program management.

Also, what madness is this? Actually testing your life support system BEFORE you put crew onboard? My God, what will they think of next? /s

 

[DougF]

Even if NASA rejects HAVEN-1 as their "space station" the goal of 2 week missions would allow NASA to cycle entire classes of astronauts through to get in-space experience versus some of them waiting years to launch.
I did see a previous question of Dragon availability...with the 5 planned, can SpaceX turn around the capsules fast enough to support a mission every 2 weeks for months/years?

 

[fl4Ksh]

If the ISS has taught us anything, it's that multimodular LEO space stations like ISS are not the way to go. They are complex, have a lot of interfaces that are prone to leaks, are small and cramped, are super expensive to build, to deploy to LEO, and to operate and maintain (NASA spends $3B to $4B per year to operate ISS). Unimodular space stations like Skylab are simple in design, spacious, can be deployed to LEO in a single launch, and are far less expensive compared to multimodular designs.

The replacement for the ISS has been under development for nearly five years and has been launched to near orbital altitudes and speed for the past two years. I refer, of course, to the SpaceX Starship. Within the next 24 months SpaceX, with or without NASA participation, could configure a Ship (the second stage of Starship) into a multilevel space station to accommodate a crew of 10 (ISS is designed for 7).

Much of the design work applicable to that Starship LEO space station has already been accomplished by SpaceX on its NASA contract for the HLS Starship lunar lander.

That Starship space station would have a pressurized volume of 1000 cubic meters (ISS has 916), and it would be deployed to LEO at 435 km altitude/50-degree inclination in a single launch (ISS required 35 flights). The cost for construction and deployment to LEO for that Starship LEO space station would be $4B to $5B (ISS cost $150B in today's money to build and deploy to LEO).

The Starship LEO space station does not require flaps, or a heatshield, or propellant refilling in LEO.

Crew rotation and resupply would be handled by Starships or by Dragon spacecraft or both.

Side note: My lab worked on Skylab for nearly three years (1967-69) on designing, building and testing various subsystems for that LEO space station.

 

[Rick C.]

The profit motive is going to kill these poor people...

It has in the past. See Boeing.

 

[Apostolos]

I am so excited for the team putting this together. Just wondering if it needs much more fly, fail, fix, repeat designed in to the plan, you know hardware rich, to have a 50/50 chance at 2030 timeframe of being NASA ready. Are space stations different to not do the same as SpaceX?

Compared to the other vendors I think Vast already is closer to the fly/fix/repeat cycle. They have opted for a staged approach that starts with a very minimal "space station" and builds from there. I really like their approach. Their biggest risk factor is that NASA may finally decide that they only want to fund stations that will allow continuous occupation right from the start. In my opinion, that's probably the surest way for NASA to guarantee there will be a gap between ISS and any commercial follow-on.

They are also well positioned for getting sovereign customers in the Middle East, etc. Two to four week missions, similar to what Axiom has done, are probably the sweet spot for this market.

 

[Rick C.]

Poor engineering and management is what kills people, not a profit motive.

You can have that in a for-profit and not-for-profit environment.

Bean counters add a whole new dimension to just poor engineering.

 

[fenris_uy]

If the ISS has taught us anything, it's that multimodular LEO space stations like ISS are not the way to go. They are complex, have a lot of interfaces that are prone to leaks, are small and cramped, are super expensive to build, to deploy to LEO, and to operate and maintain (NASA spends $3B to $4B per year to operate ISS). Unimodular space stations like Skylab are simple in design, spacious, can be deployed to LEO in a single launch, and are far less expensive compared to multimodular designs.

The replacement for the ISS has been under development for nearly five years and has been launched to near orbital altitudes and speed for the past two years. I refer, of course, to the SpaceX Starship. Within the next 24 months SpaceX, with or without NASA participation, could configure a Ship (the second stage of Starship) into a multilevel space station to accommodate a crew of 10 (ISS is designed for 7).

Much of the design work applicable to that Starship LEO space station has already been accomplished by SpaceX on its NASA contract for the HLS Starship lunar lander.

That Starship space station would have a pressurized volume of 1000 cubic meters (ISS has 916), and it would be deployed to LEO at 435 km altitude/50-degree inclination in a single launch (ISS required 35 flights). The cost for construction and deployment to LEO for that Starship LEO space station would be $4B to $5B (ISS cost $150B to build and deploy to LEO).

The Starship LEO space station does not require flaps, or a heatshield, or propellant refilling in LEO.

Crew rotation and resupply would be handled by Starships or by Dragon spacecraft or both.

Your modules are as spacious as your launch vehicle can support. ISS has 4m wide modules, because that's what they could launch on STS. Skylab was 6.6m wide because that's what you could launch on Saturn V. Same with the length. If you are launching a single module station with Falcon 9, it's going to be less spacious than a single module station launched on NewGlenn, or a multi modular station launched on Starship.

 

[ChefJeff789]

It's funny that none of these companies ever mention whether or not "adult entertainment" plays an explicit role in their business plans. Because if we're behind honest, blackjack and hookers is probably where the money is.

 

[EllPeaTea]

Your modules are as spacious as your launch vehicle can support. ISS has 4m wide modules, because that's what they could launch on STS. Skylab was 6.6m wide because that's what you could launch on Saturn V. Same with the length. If you are launching a single module station with Falcon 9, it's going to be less spacious than a single module station launched on NewGlenn, or a multi modular station launched on Starship.

Casey Handmer wrote some stuff on this a few years back. He reckoned it might be cheaper to actually build a launch system that can handle the bigger modules, than to persist with the current system.
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/06/26/are-modular-space-stations-cost-effective/

 

[Yeay right]

Because if we're behind honest, blackjack and hookers is probably where the money is.

Isn't Las Vegas currently having issues with low demand? People want stuff "here and now" and that means gambling on mobile app and watching porn.

 

[gmerrick]

Are docking collars standardized or does everyone have their own version?

 

[Tech-Space-Cars]

Isn't Las Vegas currently having issues with low demand? People want stuff "here and now" and that means gambling on mobile app and watching porn.

Yes. There quite recently, twice in the last few months. Once for a Star Trek con in late August, and once for a concert in late November. The place is deserted. Even the nicer hotels are kicking out really good deals.

 

[Frank C.]

We try and minimize talking about Nazis, unless it's derogatory.

Screw the nazis.