NASA Rewrites the Rules for Developers of Private Space Stations
About five years from now, a modified Dragon spacecraft will begin to fire its Draco thrusters, pushing the International Space Station out of its orbit and sending the largest object humans have built in space inexorably to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
And then what?
China's Tiangong Space Station will still be going strong. NASA, however, faces a serious risk of losing its foothold in low-Earth orbit. Space agency leaders have long recognized this and nearly half a decade ago awarded about $500 million to four different companies to begin working on 'commercial' space stations to fill the void.
But in that time there has been precious little metal cut, and there are serious concerns about whether any of these replacement stations will be ready to go when the International Space Station falls into the drink.
On Monday, in one of his first official tasks, NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy signed a new 'directive' on commercial space stations that seeks to address this concern.
'To meet the goals of a commercial system within the proposed budget, a modification to the current approach for LEO platforms is required as specified in the remaining sections of this directive,' states the document, signed by Duffy. To succeed, he wrote, the strategy 'must be altered.'
NASA's previous plan involved issuing a 'request for proposals' early next year as part of a competition that would have selected one or, at most, two companies to move forward into assembly and certification of their stations prior to flight. However, according to Duffy's directive, there is up to a $4 billion shortfall in the budget NASA was expected to receive, and what would be needed for this program. The president's budget request included $272.3 million in fiscal year 2026 and $2.1 billion over the next five years for the development and deployment of new commercial space stations.
Because of this plan's perceived shortcomings, with the new directive, NASA is making some substantial changes to the Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations Program moving forward: Instead of moving forward in Phase 2 with a firm, fixed-price contract for certification and services, NASA will extend the current program of Space Act Agreements awarded to 'multiple' participants.
There will be a 'full and open' competition for interested companies to receive Space Act Agreements. NASA will award a minimum of two and preferably three providers within six months of the formal announcement of a proposal.
NASA will shift the formal design, acceptance, and certification from this Space Act Agreement phase to a follow-on certification phase (so companies cannot get certified until after they fly).
At least 25 percent of milestone funding will be withheld until after a successful in-space crewed demonstration of a space station.
There is a new minimum capability NASA seeks, which is significantly less than the original 'full operational capability' the agency sought. Now, the minimum required capability will be '4 crew for 1-month increments.' Changing the Program Completely
Some of these are rather big changes. The ongoing reliance on Space Act Agreements, for example, will allow companies more leeway in how they design their stations. Had the agency moved into a more structured contract, known as Federal Acquisition Regulations, NASA could have levied more specific requirements on the companies.
This approach of lowering the minimum capabilities will also give companies a better chance to develop operational space stations by 2030, when the International Space Station is expected to be deorbited.
Phil McAlister, who directed NASA's Commercial Space Division from 2005 to 2024, which included this commercial space station program, said the changes give NASA and the companies a chance for success, given that the agency's budget will be less than anticipated.
'How was NASA's previous strategy for commercial stations going to work when they lost close to a third of their budget?' McAlister told Ars. 'They had no chance. This gives them a chance.'
It is unclear how widely this document was circulated before Duffy signed it on Monday. It appears to have been hastily written. Northrop Grumman, for example, is spelled two different ways. One source told Ars that senior leaders in NASA's space operations division were not made aware of the changes before the directive was distributed. Winners and Losers
About five years ago, NASA awarded initial space station development contracts to four different companies: Northrop Grumman, Blue Origin, Axiom Space, and Voyager Space. Since then, Northrop has dropped its effort and joined Voyager's team. There has also been some interest from other companies, most notably Vast, which is working with SpaceX to develop its initial space station.
Probably the most striking thing about the new directive is that it seems to favor Vast over NASA's original contractors. Specifically, Vast's Haven-1 module is designed for four astronauts to spend two weeks in orbit, and the company has a more straightforward pathway to building a station that would meet NASA's minimum requirements.
The other companies had been planning larger stations that would have more permanence in orbit, which matched NASA's original desires for a successor to the International Space Station. The new directive favors a company building up capabilities through interim steps, including stations with a limited lifespan on orbit.
'All the current players are going to have to do some kind of pivot, at least revisit their current configuration,' McAlister said. 'Certain players are going to have to do a harder pivot.'
One industry official, speaking anonymously, put it more bluntly: 'Only Haven-1 can succeed in this environment. That is our read.'
The chief executive officer of Vast, Max Haot, told Ars that the company bet that starting with a minimum viable product was the best business strategy and fully funded that approach without government money.
'It seems like NASA is now leaning into an approach for the future of CLDs that is led by what industry believes it can achieve technically and build a credible business model around,' Haot told Ars. 'Seeing that information from contractors before committing to buying services can help increase long-term risk reduction. This seems similar to the successful approaches used by NASA for cargo and crew.'
Vast has worked closely with SpaceX in the development of its station, to the extent that Haven-1 will largely rely on the Dragon spacecraft for life support and some other functions. Future stations, such as Haven-2, will have more independent capabilities.
This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Europe Ariane 6 rocket launches a weather satellite
Europe's Ariane 6, the successor to the Ariane 5 seen here, launched a weather and climate satellite to orbit on Tuesday night. NASA File Photo by Bill Ingalls/UPI | License Photo Aug. 13 (UPI) -- Europe's Ariane 6 rocket sent a weather and climate satellite to orbit on Tuesday night. The Ariane 6 took off at 8:37 p.m. EDT from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, in its third-ever launch, carrying the Metop-SGA1. "The mission as a whole not only ensures the continued delivery of global observations from polar orbit for weather forecasting and climate analysis for more than 20 years, but also offers enhanced accuracy and resolution compared to the original MetOp mission -- along with new measurement capabilities to expand its scientific reach," The European Space Agency posted on its website. The Metop-SGA1 will use six onboard instruments to gather an assortment of weather and climate data, across 7.5 years. It will eventually be joined by five other satellites to form the Metop Second Generation constellation. "The satellite will take global observation of weather and climate from a polar orbit to a new level, providing high-resolution observations of temperature, precipitation, clouds, winds, sea ice, aerosols, pollution, soil moisture, volcanic dust and a multitude of other parameters," according to Arianespace representatives. The liftoff was the 355th for Arianespace and the company's EUMETSAT 21st meteorological satellite to be sent to space.
CNN
4 hours ago
- CNN
The perfectly fine, already-paid-for satellites Trump wants to destroy in a fiery atmospheric reentry
Space programs Climate change Donald Trump Federal agencies FacebookTweetLink NASA is planning to decommission premier satellite missions that gather information on planet-warming pollution and other climate vital signs beginning as soon as October, sources inside and outside of the agency told CNN. The destruction of the satellites — which will be abandoned and allowed to eventually burn up in a fiery descent into Earth's atmosphere — marks the latest step by the Trump administration to scale back federal climate science. President Donald Trump's budget proposal takes a hatchet to NASA's Earth science spending for fiscal year 2026, which begins in October. The greenhouse gas monitoring missions, known collectively as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, are some of the many Earth science casualties in the proposal. Other satellites and instruments on the chopping block include the long-lived Aqua satellite, which carries a high-resolution Earth imaging instrument called MODIS, that among other uses, helps detect wildfires worldwide. Also at risk are the Terra and Aura missions, each of which have climate science applications, and planned satellites that would precisely measure solar radiation, heavy precipitation and clouds. While the Trump administration says it is looking to end the OCO and other missions to cut costs, scientists involved in the projects see an anti-climate science pattern at work. Congress is still considering Trump's budget request and may reject some, or all, of the Earth science cuts, but NASA is proceeding as if the White House spending blueprint will be implemented as-written. David Crisp, a former NASA scientist who worked on the OCO missions and managed them until he retired in 2022, confirmed the decommissioning planning for OCO-2 and OCO-3. Other sources, including one NASA employee, also confirmed this plan, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't approved to discuss the issue. NASA calls a mission's closeout phase — the period when the program team works out how to end it — 'Phase F.' The Phase F state of planning for the OCO missions was first reported by NPR. In response to questions from CNN, a NASA spokesperson pointed to Trump's budget request. 'It would not be appropriate for us to comment at this time as the budget process is still happening. Should the budget pass as proposed — it still needs to make its way through Congress — this will be implemented upon the start of the next fiscal year.' Together, the OCO-2, a freestanding satellite, and OCO-3, which is mounted on the International Space Station, measure the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, specifically sniffing out climate pollution. The OCO missions are particularly useful for tracking fossil fuel and ecosystem-related emissions, scientists told CNN. The instruments also help scientists monitor plant productivity — critical for farmers and the researchers studying forest loss. While OCO-3 could be switched off and remain attached to the ISS, perhaps to be turned on again in the future, the decommissioning process for OCO-2 is far more complicated — and fiery. The satellite would be moved into a much lower orbit and exist there as space junk for years until it burns up in the Earth's atmosphere. The purposeful abandonment or destruction of multimillion-dollar satellites and instruments is essentially unprecedented, scientists told CNN. They are particularly baffled by the decision to destroy OCO-2, given it already has enough fuel on it to last through 2040. The OCO missions are still functioning and are thought to have many years left of data-gathering, in addition to the fuel onboard, which has already been bought by American taxpayers. It is not business as usual to shut off working satellites without conducting a comprehensive review, sources told CNN, nor is it typical to kill functional spacecraft that can cost billions to put into space in the first place. 'The reality is that as long as these instruments are producing high-quality data, it's essentially unheard of to decommission the satellites, because keeping them going is so cheap compared to building them and launching them in the first place,' Anna Michalak, a climate researcher at Carnegie Science and Stanford University who works with greenhouse gas emissions data, told CNN. The OCO missions are important for other countries, too, since they also use the data, Michalak said: 'It's not just that these are the only two NASA-funded missions. It's that these have been the most impactful missions in this space, globally, period.' Losing the OCO missions would hurt US leadership in climate science and create a multiyear gap in space-based climate pollution measurements, said Ben Poulter of Spark Climate Solutions, a nonprofit focused on climate risks and innovative fixes. Poulter was previously a NASA scientist and helped lead greenhouse gas monitoring efforts for the Biden administration. 'Losing these satellites prematurely gives away the leadership to Europe and to China in terms of monitoring CO2 concentrations and emissions,' Poulter said. Prematurely ending the OCO missions is consistent with the perception that the Trump administration 'doesn't want to do anything related to climate science and climate services,' he added. Crisp, the former NASA scientist, also told CNN that decommissioning so many Earth science missions at the same time fits a pattern. 'My guess is that they perceive these missions as missions that were designed for climate, for reinforcing climate hysteria or something,' Crisp said of the Trump administration. 'They think these missions were designed for a regulatory reason, for example. But I want to point out NASA is not a regulatory agency.' There are at least two possibilities for saving the carbon observatory mission, though researchers are not optimistic about either one coming to fruition. The first is Congress. Lawmakers could reject Trump's proposal and offer NASA the budget it needs to maintain US climate and Earth science status quo. Trump would also have to sign such a bill. The second possibility is to create a public-private partnership that pays the expenses for maintaining these instruments and processing the data back on Earth. This could take the form of a philanthropic organization, a wealthy individual or perhaps a university taking over OCO-2 or OCO-3, or perhaps both, for a period of time. The space agency has already issued a call for partnerships for OCO-3, and it is expected to put out a similar call for operating OCO-2 at some point this week, multiple researchers who work with OCO data said. 'There's this scramble to see what can be done before any sort of decommissioning or Phase F protocols go into effect later this year,' Poulter said. However, involving the private sector in operating OCO or other Earth-observing satellites can present complications, Michalak said, as it could diminish NASA's role in providing an accurate backbone of Earth observations. As the search for a partnership to save OCO-2 and OCO-3 begins, NASA only has less than two months to figure out how to keep the missions going.
CNN
4 hours ago
- CNN
The perfectly fine, already-paid-for satellites Trump wants to destroy in a fiery atmospheric reentry
NASA is planning to decommission premier satellite missions that gather information on planet-warming pollution and other climate vital signs beginning as soon as October, sources inside and outside of the agency told CNN. The destruction of the satellites — which will be abandoned and allowed to eventually burn up in a fiery descent into Earth's atmosphere — marks the latest step by the Trump administration to scale back federal climate science. President Donald Trump's budget proposal takes a hatchet to NASA's Earth science spending for fiscal year 2026, which begins in October. The greenhouse gas monitoring missions, known collectively as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, are some of the many Earth science casualties in the proposal. Other satellites and instruments on the chopping block include the long-lived Aqua satellite, which carries a high-resolution Earth imaging instrument called MODIS, that among other uses, helps detect wildfires worldwide. Also at risk are the Terra and Aura missions, each of which have climate science applications, and planned satellites that would precisely measure solar radiation, heavy precipitation and clouds. While the Trump administration says it is looking to end the OCO and other missions to cut costs, scientists involved in the projects see an anti-climate science pattern at work. Congress is still considering Trump's budget request and may reject some, or all, of the Earth science cuts, but NASA is proceeding as if the White House spending blueprint will be implemented as-written. David Crisp, a former NASA scientist who worked on the OCO missions and managed them until he retired in 2022, confirmed the decommissioning planning for OCO-2 and OCO-3. Other sources, including one NASA employee, also confirmed this plan, speaking on condition of anonymity because they weren't approved to discuss the issue. NASA calls a mission's closeout phase — the period when the program team works out how to end it — 'Phase F.' The Phase F state of planning for the OCO missions was first reported by NPR. In response to questions from CNN, a NASA spokesperson pointed to Trump's budget request. 'It would not be appropriate for us to comment at this time as the budget process is still happening. Should the budget pass as proposed — it still needs to make its way through Congress — this will be implemented upon the start of the next fiscal year.' Together, the OCO-2, a freestanding satellite, and OCO-3, which is mounted on the International Space Station, measure the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, specifically sniffing out climate pollution. The OCO missions are particularly useful for tracking fossil fuel and ecosystem-related emissions, scientists told CNN. The instruments also help scientists monitor plant productivity — critical for farmers and the researchers studying forest loss. While OCO-3 could be switched off and remain attached to the ISS, perhaps to be turned on again in the future, the decommissioning process for OCO-2 is far more complicated — and fiery. The satellite would be moved into a much lower orbit and exist there as space junk for years until it burns up in the Earth's atmosphere. The purposeful abandonment or destruction of multimillion-dollar satellites and instruments is essentially unprecedented, scientists told CNN. They are particularly baffled by the decision to destroy OCO-2, given it already has enough fuel on it to last through 2040. The OCO missions are still functioning and are thought to have many years left of data-gathering, in addition to the fuel onboard, which has already been bought by American taxpayers. It is not business as usual to shut off working satellites without conducting a comprehensive review, sources told CNN, nor is it typical to kill functional spacecraft that can cost billions to put into space in the first place. 'The reality is that as long as these instruments are producing high-quality data, it's essentially unheard of to decommission the satellites, because keeping them going is so cheap compared to building them and launching them in the first place,' Anna Michalak, a climate researcher at Carnegie Science and Stanford University who works with greenhouse gas emissions data, told CNN. The OCO missions are important for other countries, too, since they also use the data, Michalak said: 'It's not just that these are the only two NASA-funded missions. It's that these have been the most impactful missions in this space, globally, period.' Losing the OCO missions would hurt US leadership in climate science and create a multiyear gap in space-based climate pollution measurements, said Ben Poulter of Spark Climate Solutions, a nonprofit focused on climate risks and innovative fixes. Poulter was previously a NASA scientist and helped lead greenhouse gas monitoring efforts for the Biden administration. 'Losing these satellites prematurely gives away the leadership to Europe and to China in terms of monitoring CO2 concentrations and emissions,' Poulter said. Prematurely ending the OCO missions is consistent with the perception that the Trump administration 'doesn't want to do anything related to climate science and climate services,' he added. Crisp, the former NASA scientist, also told CNN that decommissioning so many Earth science missions at the same time fits a pattern. 'My guess is that they perceive these missions as missions that were designed for climate, for reinforcing climate hysteria or something,' Crisp said of the Trump administration. 'They think these missions were designed for a regulatory reason, for example. But I want to point out NASA is not a regulatory agency.' There are at least two possibilities for saving the carbon observatory mission, though researchers are not optimistic about either one coming to fruition. The first is Congress. Lawmakers could reject Trump's proposal and offer NASA the budget it needs to maintain US climate and Earth science status quo. Trump would also have to sign such a bill. The second possibility is to create a public-private partnership that pays the expenses for maintaining these instruments and processing the data back on Earth. This could take the form of a philanthropic organization, a wealthy individual or perhaps a university taking over OCO-2 or OCO-3, or perhaps both, for a period of time. The space agency has already issued a call for partnerships for OCO-3, and it is expected to put out a similar call for operating OCO-2 at some point this week, multiple researchers who work with OCO data said. 'There's this scramble to see what can be done before any sort of decommissioning or Phase F protocols go into effect later this year,' Poulter said. However, involving the private sector in operating OCO or other Earth-observing satellites can present complications, Michalak said, as it could diminish NASA's role in providing an accurate backbone of Earth observations. As the search for a partnership to save OCO-2 and OCO-3 begins, NASA only has less than two months to figure out how to keep the missions going.
