Another great video, Laura that takes your subscribers to 3k. I believe your aim was 1k by year end? Congratulations and well deserved - your channel is class 🎉
A nightmare scenario for NASA would be attaching a hab (without a finished power mod) to the ISS, and then needing to delay ISS deorbit because Axiom was late or bankrupt for power delivery. This new order reduces that risk.
Bankrupt is the keyword here...IMO Axiom doesn't have the funds to build the hab. They are hoping if they can get something in space the sunk cost fallacy will then entice investors to fund completing the hab too... Most likely if the power module ever gets to ISS it will also be deorbited with it.
Starship being stainless can “easily” be modded into a lot of things. It’s really a great starting point. For example, a fully functional lunar starship, prior to launch, could be modded with a system that processes lunar regolith to release and store volatiles - insert dirt, seal door, apply heat, condense gases into liquids, expel used dirt and repeat. Same thing with processing regolith for metals. The spoil could then be combined with polymer to create protective structures for lunar habitats or simply piled on top. The key point is the payload of a lunar starship could be integrated into the structure of starship itself to maximize efficiency and capability by building it out on earth on a functional barebones lunar starship.
Thank you! Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you as well! Ha, yep, I didn't notice until editing that at least two kids are audible in the background.
IMHO we should have never gotten into this situation. ISS modules should have been gradually replaced, blurring the line between ISS and whatever comes next. The lack of funding is criminal.
Exactly, there is no reason not to just let the Russians detach their segment and we continue the ISS on our own. We could have solved this problem already.
@@JustMe-dc6ksThere was talk (but no decision) of the Axiom Segment taking robotic arms, the experiment airlock, and possibly even Kibo with it when it detached, but this change in plans likely means that won't happen as the ISS will still need them and the power module doesn't have as many options for attachment. Axiom has laid off a lot of people recently and owes a lot of money to both SpaceX and Thales. I suspect if any of their hardware makes it to orbit it'll be after the fire sale when somebody else pays for it.
Starship being stainless can “easily” be modded into a lot of things. It’s really a great starting point. For example, a fully functional lunar starship, prior to launch, could be modded with a system that processes lunar regolith to release and store volatiles - ionsert dirt, seal container, apply heat, condense gases into liquids, expel used dirt and repeat. Same thing with processing regolith for metals. The spoil could then be combined with polymer to create protective structures for lunar habitats or simply piled on top. The key point is the payload of a lunar starship could be integrated into the structure of starship itself to maximize efficiency and capability by building it out on earth on an already barebones functional lunar starship.
Very informative report. I find your perspectives on these space issues very interesting. I wonder: how long it will be before that are enough new space station modules assembled in orbit in order to successfully replace the original International Space Station? I'm not just talking about Axiom, but also Orbital Reef, VAST, and others. Any ideas? Will it be by 2030?
Thanks! And good question. I think it will be the 2030s, but not by 2030. It will depend on how successful these initial smaller stations are and how quickly they are able to expand (both the hardware and the user base).
@@lauraforczykI think there is second major factor in timelines: availability of affordable heavy launchers like Blue Origin New Glenn (with 7m fairing) and OFC Starship promise, that could be game changer. I am following news about stations, and I have noticed that most of companies decided to launch their station modules mostly as technology demonstrators, with preparation for larger modules. But those larger modules.. are still in design phase, and I think they don't commited to much resources for developing for now. I think we will be seeing rush in timelines when both starship AND new Glenn will be operational, as "first Station" will have bigger chance to secure most lucrative parts of potential market. Falcon 9/ Heavy, launcher that was planned for "current generation" got major issue with relatively small fairing. So modules will not be especially big. Bigger launchers will allow to have much bigger space inside.
To duplicate the ISS you either need "enough modules" or one orbiting starship fitted as a lab. Axiom will be bankrupt or bought out before it ever delivers enough modules to duplicate the ISS
I’d put it a slightly different way from Laura: It depends on them seeing enough potential customers- which, unfortunately, at the moment, they don’t see guaranteed enough to show up on time for their business plans. That’s why IMO NASA’s under-funding of the entire Commercial LEO Development effort needs to, first and foremost, correct the Demand problem: and specifically aim at generating a minimum customer base sooner (next few years) not later. If there are (at least perceived) to be enough customers coming down the pipeline, then the private money WILL show up. - Dave Huntsman
Axiom is experiencing financial and supply issues. VAST plans to launch their Haven-1 module via a Falcon 9 rocket in 2025 thus becoming humanities first commercial space station
Agreed but Coriolis effect has everybody puking their stomachs out. We'd need at least a diameter of 150 meters for the Coriolis effect to be small enough to get used to without extremely ill effects.
Everything is going to change at NASA after January 20. NASA will become more efficient and focused, even as its budget will go up significantly. There will probably be multiple commercial space station partnerships. One new space station project I hope to see announced is a spinning ring station like in the movie 2001. We need that for space tourism. It is also they type of space station that many nations will want to open a space embassy on; and where astronauts working at microgravity stations would go to for "gravity breaks". Furthermore, I think spinning ring stations would be the ideal type of transportation for people wanting to visit Mars. All you have to do is add an axial engine and fuel tanks, basically, and people can then take a pleasure cruise to Mars in Mars gravity all the way there; or at least lunar gravity. We will also need a massive, cryogenic fuel storage depot at LEO, for future interplanetary missions.
@@lauraforczyk I replied to you, and then TH-cam deleted my post. I was saying you may be right, but I think there would be a lot of commercial investment into a spinning station once someone puts the seed money to start construction. This thing would be the most expensive hotel on Earth, a tourist attraction, could serve as UN Hiquarters, countries might want to buy half of a module to set up a "space embassy", etc. Probably there would be a waiting list in no time, of investors waiting for space aboard the second such station, the third ... the tenth. By the way, another way these ring stations could be used as Mars transports would be for a Starship to dock to them and then push them onto a Mars trajectory. Somewhere nearing Mars, another Starship could dock with it to slow it down to Mars orbit. Another market these spinners would attract is the movie industry. Eventually there will be entire spinning stations belonging to movie studios, for their scifi productions. First such movie will be a remake of 2001, I'm sure.
The money originally tagged for SLS would open up a world of possibilities. And we can all agree, we're back in a race, now with China. And China does not intend to adhere to any moon treaty. They just take what they want. Which is why USA must get there first, to SHARE the available resources.
Their time frames are just not aggressive enough, first module in 28? They have to adopt SpaceX's work strategy to be competitive. Vast is looking to send their modules up next year! I think Axiom will have to step it up or they'll be left behind w or wo NASA help. Thats my take. Yes, yes space is hard.
Keep an eye on Vast and their Haven 1. Seems they are taking a Minimum Viable Product route. 1. Use Dragon life support. 2. Time to time manning. There are lots of grandiose plans (Orbital Reef) but most, like most new launch providers are never going to fly. Haven 1 is probably the most realistic chance at some kind of CLEO presence. Axiom's money worries are very serious. Vast has the money to fully fund Haven 1's entire mission end to end. The only other viable option is Voyager Starlab which has a lot of international support (Airbus, et. al.)
I believe that Axiom's changed in focus is due more to the independent reports that the original CEO of the company whom just left mismanaged the company's resources and operationed Axiom as if were government entity vs startup company that it is. Personally, I am shocked they went to convert the hab modules into power module with new built hub one coming later. How they supposed to dock with the power module? without airlock? If the ISS is donating US modules to Axiom , that would make some sense in re-order of assembling the new station to me.
@@Wrangler-fp4ei it could be. Because of their financial troubles, they were going to have to change something. I really don’t understand why they are repurposing hardware either, except they must be really short on cash.
NASA not having the money for artificial gravity research is exactly why ISS should end and not be replaced. We have studied micro G for 60+ years and it has taught us we can slow the degradation of the human body in micro G, but we can't stop it. A long enough exposure is lethal and before it becomes lethal the subject will experience permanent irreversible injury. ISS should be our last micro G only space station. Any future stations should have artificial gravity so we can study the effects of reduced gravity wells....Such a station could answer one of the most important questions facing humanity which can human health be maintained in Mars gravity? If the answer to that question is yes can colonize Mars. If the answer is no we can't.
I don't see why we couldn't develop a gravity simulator section, that simulates a certain degree of gravity, like simulating the Moons 1/6th gravity should offset a lot of damage since the mass and moment of inertia doesn't change even if gravity does, having a low gravity hab section that has sleep and more importantly exercise equipment in to such a segment, could allow extending a humans time in Space quite a bit and address the issues we are going to face with the Mars missions.
@@Steven_Edwards Well you just rotate the hab faster or slower and you can have Mars, Moon or Earth gravity on demand.... It should be noted cuz I think we should use Starship not ISS type stations that stay in space for research. As Starship is roughly the same internal volume as ISS, massive cheaper and can return to Earth after every research mission... Anyhow if you connect 2 Starships at the nose with a cable and rotate them around their mutual center of mass you can create simulated gravity up at least one G. Making for a research station 2x the size of ISS for little more than price of a 300 to 500 meter cable.
The consensus is that a rotating station would have to have a diameter of at least 150-200 meters for the coriolis effect to become less of an issue. Which it still is at that diameter. About half would puke their stomachs out, instead of all of them.
You are an influencer indeed; you unpacked a lot of information here within the 30 minutes or so. You had some good points. I would still like to see some kind of rethink on keeping the ISS up there if for no other reason than a storage facility as a critical supply depot. If properly used would manage to pay for itself, especially used during a push to the moon. Having a supply transfer facility might be a good idea while in the lunar development phase. You know if they are not going to have the lunar gateway up there, that by itself could justify an expenditure of keeping the ISS afloat at some minimal level as a quasi-substitute of sorts until a more robust lunar presence is established. Put that as part of the rethink of the ISS.
Thank you! I wish we could keep ISS up there. It's already being used for storage so much, and that storage space would be lost, along with most of the equipment contained within. But who would pay for the ISS upkeep indefinitely?
@@lauraforczyk Laura, here is something. Consider it or convert the ISS over to a private enterprise similar to what we have on the ground as Moving and or Storage companies. Create an LLC with partnership arrangements. Like storage lockers the bigger the payload weight or size the more the storage fees. Also - like in any marina there are docking fees as well, you could have several or different packages for short- or long-term arrangements. The shorter the arrangements, or turn around times, the higher the fees. And for each package there would be incentives. Such as if it’s critical short storage you knock off say one to three docking fees before they kick in. Or long term, which might make for more of the bread-and-butter issues, take off four to six docking fees before they kick in. Laura, usable containers, if the ISS were to be stripped out, brought back and used as museum pieces, Air and Space museum right next to Sky Lab, or sold at auction to space enthusiasts, would upon up the ISS as container storage. This idea is not new. It was first proposed at the founding Pittsburgh conference of the NSS in March of 1987 by Tom Rogers who had addressed the issue with NASA for the use of the external tanks on the shuttle. Where he proposed creating a push motor and hatch facilities and put those tanks into a parking orbit and then hire out a shuttle crew to outfit the tanks with life support and power and then lease or sell them to companies or concerns that want to do research and development in micro-gravity. Without the Gateway Station we may come to realize only to late that we ditched the ISS prematurely, where its useful utility was cut short without thinking things all the way through. More to be discussed with this I am sure, but there are alternative ideas, ISS upkeep missions could be paid for by say the above measures and more. I think it’s doable, where flexibility and ingenuity are the key.
NASA is all about change in the wrong ways... NASA was tasked with returning to the moon and collecting rocks. Basically, a repeat of Apollo 17 mission... Instead of reverse engineering Apollo capsule and lander using current technology to save weight, we got a Frankenstein moon rocket that's only launched once every two to three years, a ton of CGI, a potential Starship that requires 12 orbital refuelings to go to the Moon, plans for a moon orbiting space station, a lander so tall that it requires a elevator or very long ladder to enter and exit... NASA has overextended. If NASA have completed the basic task, Congress will be throwing money at them to continue to do more but that hasn't happened. The term keep it simple stupid applies...😢
Can the International Space Station be placed into a higher “museum” orbit to save it for posterity? Too costly? Not practical enough? Navigational hazard?
NASA looked at that option and decided that not only would it be too costly to boost it and maintain that higher orbit, there's too much risk of space debris (both something hitting ISS or something happening internally to break up ISS). Sucks, though, because I'd rather keep ISS than burn it up!
I would add few things to what Laura had wrote: To controllable deorbit station NASA need change velocity of station about 50m/s (DeltaV). To achieve that SpaceX will require about 16 tones of propellant. Changing orbit to higher that is actually save from debris and radiation isa should be moved to medium orbit, about 5-20 thousand km away. Basically halfway to geostationary. It would require a LOT of DeltaV, satellite to move from low earth orbit to geostationary transfer orbit (ap= 35800 km) require about 4 thousand DeltaV.
The Commercial Space Station Plan is changing? Laura explains the how and why, in her opinion. ‘I think the change is because the station needs more power, but what do I know. Compared to Laura, whose first job was working on space station projects’ Axium Space is attaching the Power module, first, because they need to power the habitation module before it can be habitable. ‘Wasn’t it NASA who changed what module to attach first? All I’m saying is that NASA’s needs come first.’
Who would buy it? Takes billions per year essentially to maintain the system as a whole. And that’s for what is now approaching a quarter-century old station.
Going to pipe in before you're done (probably an ill advised idea, I'm at 16:15). I feel like extending de-orbit to compete with China is ill advised. If we want to compete? Launch a competitor! Trying to milk a cow that's already depleted is not only a failing expedition but also kind of an embarrassment. Plus there's the potential for complete failure. As always, a fascinating and wonderful video!
Thinking axiom or any other Comercial endeavor will replace ISS multy country venture is day dreaming at best.... a company doesn't have the infinite money a government have and will always charge more for the similar services which will result in less progress for more money spent compared to gov. run project. Once there is proper industry and Comercial interactions that will start changing but there is no industry in space just gov. Contracts and gimik one of projects and missions.
Yes! Decades of microgravity research with pretty much nothing to show except how terrible microgravity is for humans, but the simple engineering solution is absolutely verboten. COME ON.
We are in a true “Singularity” w.rt. space (as with everything else, as Speaker Johnson realized to his horror a few hours ago). NASA has no idea what’s happening, and neither does anyone else. No one will understand what’s going on until at least a few months into 2025. Go Jared. Go Elon. Throw your monkey wrenches with gusto. BTW, Gravity was a disaster, along with Interstellar. Ugh. Imho.
Don't worry if all of this commercial space station provider can't do there job well there space x for you, a starship specifically designed like a space station can be place up there
Right now starship is just an empty cylinder in its payload area, SpaceX still would have to do all the work of designing a proper hab for a space station, then place it inside starship, so they're actually way behind others who are working on it. That's not to say that they can't do it, but so far they haven't done any publicly known work towards it. Hopefully the HLS work could transfer over to making starship into a space station module, but it would still be a ton of useless additional mass since there's no plan to convert the methalox tanks into something, just ideas
@@dapeach06 I think SpaceX is a lot closer to a Starship space station than it is to HLS. A space station just needs to orbit and sustain long-term habitation, where as what they imagine their lunar lander to be is going to be a nightmare for plumbing to say the least.
@@dphuntsman I think we can both agree that the current Starship design is nowhere close to what SpaceX has submitted for their HLS bid. I think we can also agree that landing a vehicle like Starship on the moon is a lot more complicated than just inserting it into LEO. At the same time, while it's not SpaceX the partnership of countries involved with ISS has generated a talent pool specialized in the life support systems needed that SpaceX can hire from. SpaceX can not do that for 50+ ton lunar landers, it's an unexplored field. That leads me to believe if we're 10 years from Lunar Starship we're probably only 5 years away from SpaceX's Skylab.
OK--------------. Using the ISS as a mother station to Start the NEW Station is the Worst Idea I have Ever Heard of... Expanding the ISS or even starting from the ISS would LOCK America into the WORST Obit to possibly be in as the Inclination is too high to efficiently reach it from Lunch sights closer to the EQUATOR including Florida without Considerable Penalties in Grose Cargo Weight capabilities... the ISS is also at such a high angle that it is very expensive to get Lunar or even Mars transfer orbits from it... An Equatorial Station would increase launch payloads by 10% while being efficiently lined up to reach both Lunar orbit and Mars. So Down with the ISS. And UP with a new Station at the BEST orbit Possible for Humanity...!!! I really do not give a rat's Ass about the Russians or China being able cheaply to reach the New International Station... I do care about being able to launch to and land from the New ISS on each and every orbit instead of waiting for the only daily orbit that matches with the ISS Orbit or the landing area back on Earth...
Another great video, Laura that takes your subscribers to 3k. I believe your aim was 1k by year end? Congratulations and well deserved - your channel is class 🎉
Thanks Ross! It's thanks to loyal subscribers like you who took a chance on me and keep coming back, despite the 2-month break and the slow ramp-up.
A nightmare scenario for NASA would be attaching a hab (without a finished power mod) to the ISS, and then needing to delay ISS deorbit because Axiom was late or bankrupt for power delivery. This new order reduces that risk.
Another good point!
Bankrupt is the keyword here...IMO Axiom doesn't have the funds to build the hab. They are hoping if they can get something in space the sunk cost fallacy will then entice investors to fund completing the hab too... Most likely if the power module ever gets to ISS it will also be deorbited with it.
Starship being stainless can “easily” be modded into a lot of things. It’s really a great starting point. For example, a fully functional lunar starship, prior to launch, could be modded with a system that processes lunar regolith to release and store volatiles - insert dirt, seal door, apply heat, condense gases into liquids, expel used dirt and repeat. Same thing with processing regolith for metals. The spoil could then be combined with polymer to create protective structures for lunar habitats or simply piled on top. The key point is the payload of a lunar starship could be integrated into the structure of starship itself to maximize efficiency and capability by building it out on earth on a functional barebones lunar starship.
Great to see you back!
Thanks!
Super interesting and important update
Thanks!
Happy holidays Laura to you and all of your children. Thanks for all the Gr8 content! I think I heard one in the background 😊
Thank you! Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you as well! Ha, yep, I didn't notice until editing that at least two kids are audible in the background.
IMHO we should have never gotten into this situation. ISS modules should have been gradually replaced, blurring the line between ISS and whatever comes next. The lack of funding is criminal.
Exactly, there is no reason not to just let the Russians detach their segment and we continue the ISS on our own.
We could have solved this problem already.
At the least they could discard the oldest most degraded modules. Why couldn’t some of them be kept and used in future zero g space stations?
I am curious if there is an engineering reason why the ISS modules couldn't be replaced over time.
You would think/hope that some of the equipment (Alpha magnetic spectrometer, Canadarm2, some modules?) could be transferred over.
@@JustMe-dc6ksThere was talk (but no decision) of the Axiom Segment taking robotic arms, the experiment airlock, and possibly even Kibo with it when it detached, but this change in plans likely means that won't happen as the ISS will still need them and the power module doesn't have as many options for attachment.
Axiom has laid off a lot of people recently and owes a lot of money to both SpaceX and Thales. I suspect if any of their hardware makes it to orbit it'll be after the fire sale when somebody else pays for it.
I think commercial space stations will go the same way commercial launch went, with SpaceX being the leader with a modified Starship.
Starship being stainless can “easily” be modded into a lot of things. It’s really a great starting point. For example, a fully functional lunar starship, prior to launch, could be modded with a system that processes lunar regolith to release and store volatiles - ionsert dirt, seal container, apply heat, condense gases into liquids, expel used dirt and repeat. Same thing with processing regolith for metals. The spoil could then be combined with polymer to create protective structures for lunar habitats or simply piled on top. The key point is the payload of a lunar starship could be integrated into the structure of starship itself to maximize efficiency and capability by building it out on earth on an already barebones functional lunar starship.
Starships could be used as scaffolds for building new space stations on.
Very informative report. I find your perspectives on these space issues very interesting. I wonder: how long it will be before that are enough new space station modules assembled in orbit in order to successfully replace the original International Space Station? I'm not just talking about Axiom, but also Orbital Reef, VAST, and others. Any ideas? Will it be by 2030?
Thanks! And good question. I think it will be the 2030s, but not by 2030. It will depend on how successful these initial smaller stations are and how quickly they are able to expand (both the hardware and the user base).
@@lauraforczykI think there is second major factor in timelines: availability of affordable heavy launchers like Blue Origin New Glenn (with 7m fairing) and OFC Starship promise, that could be game changer. I am following news about stations, and I have noticed that most of companies decided to launch their station modules mostly as technology demonstrators, with preparation for larger modules. But those larger modules.. are still in design phase, and I think they don't commited to much resources for developing for now. I think we will be seeing rush in timelines when both starship AND new Glenn will be operational, as "first Station" will have bigger chance to secure most lucrative parts of potential market. Falcon 9/ Heavy, launcher that was planned for "current generation" got major issue with relatively small fairing. So modules will not be especially big. Bigger launchers will allow to have much bigger space inside.
To duplicate the ISS you either need "enough modules" or one orbiting starship fitted as a lab. Axiom will be bankrupt or bought out before it ever delivers enough modules to duplicate the ISS
I’d put it a slightly different way from Laura: It depends on them seeing enough potential customers- which, unfortunately, at the moment, they don’t see guaranteed enough to show up on time for their business plans. That’s why IMO NASA’s under-funding of the entire Commercial LEO Development effort needs to, first and foremost, correct the Demand problem: and specifically aim at generating a minimum customer base sooner (next few years) not later. If there are (at least perceived) to be enough customers coming down the pipeline, then the private money WILL show up. - Dave Huntsman
Axiom is experiencing financial and supply issues. VAST plans to launch their Haven-1 module via a Falcon 9 rocket in 2025 thus becoming humanities first commercial space station
Haven-1 could very well be the first!
We need stations that have spinning components to provide artificial gravity. We need this to keep astronauts healthy
Agreed but Coriolis effect has everybody puking their stomachs out. We'd need at least a diameter of 150 meters for the Coriolis effect to be small enough to get used to without extremely ill effects.
Interesting take with a lot of explanation based on fact. I love that you did not fall on inspirationnel pipe dream.
Thanks, I try to balance my love of the industry with realism.
Everything is going to change at NASA after January 20. NASA will become more efficient and focused, even as its budget will go up significantly. There will probably be multiple commercial space station partnerships. One new space station project I hope to see announced is a spinning ring station like in the movie 2001. We need that for space tourism. It is also they type of space station that many nations will want to open a space embassy on; and where astronauts working at microgravity stations would go to for "gravity breaks". Furthermore, I think spinning ring stations would be the ideal type of transportation for people wanting to visit Mars. All you have to do is add an axial engine and fuel tanks, basically, and people can then take a pleasure cruise to Mars in Mars gravity all the way there; or at least lunar gravity. We will also need a massive, cryogenic fuel storage depot at LEO, for future interplanetary missions.
A spinning ring station sounds very cool! But the money is still needed to make it happen.
@@lauraforczyk I replied to you, and then TH-cam deleted my post. I was saying you may be right, but I think there would be a lot of commercial investment into a spinning station once someone puts the seed money to start construction. This thing would be the most expensive hotel on Earth, a tourist attraction, could serve as UN Hiquarters, countries might want to buy half of a module to set up a "space embassy", etc. Probably there would be a waiting list in no time, of investors waiting for space aboard the second such station, the third ... the tenth. By the way, another way these ring stations could be used as Mars transports would be for a Starship to dock to them and then push them onto a Mars trajectory. Somewhere nearing Mars, another Starship could dock with it to slow it down to Mars orbit. Another market these spinners would attract is the movie industry. Eventually there will be entire spinning stations belonging to movie studios, for their scifi productions. First such movie will be a remake of 2001, I'm sure.
The money originally tagged for SLS would open up a world of possibilities. And we can all agree, we're back in a race, now with China. And China does not intend to adhere to any moon treaty. They just take what they want. Which is why USA must get there first, to SHARE the available resources.
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 EXACTLY.
Their time frames are just not aggressive enough, first module in 28? They have to adopt SpaceX's work strategy to be competitive. Vast is looking to send their modules up next year! I think Axiom will have to step it up or they'll be left behind w or wo NASA help. Thats my take. Yes, yes space is hard.
Keep an eye on Vast and their Haven 1. Seems they are taking a Minimum Viable Product route. 1. Use Dragon life support. 2. Time to time manning. There are lots of grandiose plans (Orbital Reef) but most, like most new launch providers are never going to fly. Haven 1 is probably the most realistic chance at some kind of CLEO presence. Axiom's money worries are very serious. Vast has the money to fully fund Haven 1's entire mission end to end. The only other viable option is Voyager Starlab which has a lot of international support (Airbus, et. al.)
I believe that Axiom's changed in focus is due more to the independent reports that the original CEO of the company whom just left mismanaged the company's resources and operationed Axiom as if were government entity vs startup company that it is.
Personally, I am shocked they went to convert the hab modules into power module with new built hub one coming later. How they supposed to dock with the power module? without airlock? If the ISS is donating US modules to Axiom , that would make some sense in re-order of assembling the new station to me.
@@Wrangler-fp4ei it could be. Because of their financial troubles, they were going to have to change something.
I really don’t understand why they are repurposing hardware either, except they must be really short on cash.
Thank you for your insight. Especially hard with young kids.
Thanks! I noticed during editing you can hear them in the background.
NASA not having the money for artificial gravity research is exactly why ISS should end and not be replaced. We have studied micro G for 60+ years and it has taught us we can slow the degradation of the human body in micro G, but we can't stop it. A long enough exposure is lethal and before it becomes lethal the subject will experience permanent irreversible injury. ISS should be our last micro G only space station. Any future stations should have artificial gravity so we can study the effects of reduced gravity wells....Such a station could answer one of the most important questions facing humanity which can human health be maintained in Mars gravity? If the answer to that question is yes can colonize Mars. If the answer is no we can't.
I don't see why we couldn't develop a gravity simulator section, that simulates a certain degree of gravity, like simulating the Moons 1/6th gravity should offset a lot of damage since the mass and moment of inertia doesn't change even if gravity does, having a low gravity hab section that has sleep and more importantly exercise equipment in to such a segment, could allow extending a humans time in Space quite a bit and address the issues we are going to face with the Mars missions.
@@Steven_Edwards Well you just rotate the hab faster or slower and you can have Mars, Moon or Earth gravity on demand....
It should be noted cuz I think we should use Starship not ISS type stations that stay in space for research. As Starship is roughly the same internal volume as ISS, massive cheaper and can return to Earth after every research mission...
Anyhow if you connect 2 Starships at the nose with a cable and rotate them around their mutual center of mass you can create simulated gravity up at least one G. Making for a research station 2x the size of ISS for little more than price of a 300 to 500 meter cable.
The consensus is that a rotating station would have to have a diameter of at least 150-200 meters for the coriolis effect to become less of an issue. Which it still is at that diameter. About half would puke their stomachs out, instead of all of them.
I was just thinking how easily the Canadarm could be saved, the other day.
That would be great!
There was also a concept for space x starship to be made into a space station and that has already been submitted to NASA.
Yep! But NASA has not funded that concept so we'll see if SpaceX does it anyway.
You are an influencer indeed; you unpacked a lot of information here within the 30 minutes or so. You had some good points. I would still like to see some kind of rethink on keeping the ISS up there if for no other reason than a storage facility as a critical supply depot. If properly used would manage to pay for itself, especially used during a push to the moon. Having a supply transfer facility might be a good idea while in the lunar development phase. You know if they are not going to have the lunar gateway up there, that by itself could justify an expenditure of keeping the ISS afloat at some minimal level as a quasi-substitute of sorts until a more robust lunar presence is established. Put that as part of the rethink of the ISS.
Thank you! I wish we could keep ISS up there. It's already being used for storage so much, and that storage space would be lost, along with most of the equipment contained within. But who would pay for the ISS upkeep indefinitely?
@@lauraforczyk Laura, here is something. Consider it or convert the ISS over to a private enterprise similar to what we have on the ground as Moving and or Storage companies. Create an LLC with partnership arrangements. Like storage lockers the bigger the payload weight or size the more the storage fees. Also - like in any marina there are docking fees as well, you could have several or different packages for short- or long-term arrangements. The shorter the arrangements, or turn around times, the higher the fees. And for each package there would be incentives. Such as if it’s critical short storage you knock off say one to three docking fees before they kick in. Or long term, which might make for more of the bread-and-butter issues, take off four to six docking fees before they kick in. Laura, usable containers, if the ISS were to be stripped out, brought back and used as museum pieces, Air and Space museum right next to Sky Lab, or sold at auction to space enthusiasts, would upon up the ISS as container storage. This idea is not new. It was first proposed at the founding Pittsburgh conference of the NSS in March of 1987 by Tom Rogers who had addressed the issue with NASA for the use of the external tanks on the shuttle. Where he proposed creating a push motor and hatch facilities and put those tanks into a parking orbit and then hire out a shuttle crew to outfit the tanks with life support and power and then lease or sell them to companies or concerns that want to do research and development in micro-gravity. Without the Gateway Station we may come to realize only to late that we ditched the ISS prematurely, where its useful utility was cut short without thinking things all the way through. More to be discussed with this I am sure, but there are alternative ideas, ISS upkeep missions could be paid for by say the above measures and more. I think it’s doable, where flexibility and ingenuity are the key.
i'm all for spinning up some dragon capsule-pairs to start artificial gravity research tooooooooooooo
Sounds like fun!
NASA is all about change in the wrong ways...
NASA was tasked with returning to the moon and collecting rocks.
Basically, a repeat of Apollo 17 mission...
Instead of reverse engineering Apollo capsule and lander using current technology to save weight, we got a Frankenstein moon rocket that's only launched once every two to three years, a ton of CGI, a potential Starship that requires 12 orbital refuelings to go to the Moon, plans for a moon orbiting space station, a lander so tall that it requires a elevator or very long ladder to enter and exit...
NASA has overextended.
If NASA have completed the basic task, Congress will be throwing money at them to continue to do more but that hasn't happened.
The term keep it simple stupid applies...😢
The apollo hardware is way too outdated to take anything from. Don't make assumptions that you cannot state as fact.
Can the International Space Station be placed into a higher “museum” orbit to save it for posterity? Too costly? Not practical enough? Navigational hazard?
NASA looked at that option and decided that not only would it be too costly to boost it and maintain that higher orbit, there's too much risk of space debris (both something hitting ISS or something happening internally to break up ISS). Sucks, though, because I'd rather keep ISS than burn it up!
@ Yup! Same here. Thanks Laura! Keep up your great work. See you in the next video.
@ Thank you!
I would add few things to what Laura had wrote:
To controllable deorbit station NASA need change velocity of station about 50m/s (DeltaV). To achieve that SpaceX will require about 16 tones of propellant. Changing orbit to higher that is actually save from debris and radiation isa should be moved to medium orbit, about 5-20 thousand km away. Basically halfway to geostationary. It would require a LOT of DeltaV, satellite to move from low earth orbit to geostationary transfer orbit (ap= 35800 km) require about 4 thousand DeltaV.
I hope they save all the Zero-G indicators that have flown to the ISS since the Demo-1 mission; also the ISS cookie oven...
That would be very cool!
The Commercial Space Station Plan is changing? Laura explains the how and why, in her opinion. ‘I think the change is because the station needs more power, but what do I know. Compared to Laura, whose first job was working on space station projects’ Axium Space is attaching the Power module, first, because they need to power the habitation module before it can be habitable. ‘Wasn’t it NASA who changed what module to attach first? All I’m saying is that NASA’s needs come first.’
My understanding is that NASA did ask Axiom Space to make this change, yes.
@@lauraforczyk I was wondering why would NASA ask? Do they know better or something? "This is not an actual question."
I wanna know what Elon Musk says about this vis this Elon Musk approved?
Why NASA don't sell the ISS? Instead of paying to deorbit it.
Who would buy it? Takes billions per year essentially to maintain the system as a whole. And that’s for what is now approaching a quarter-century old station.
@@LuisMailhos I doubt they could find a buyer, and it isn’t up to NASA because there are all the international partners to consider.
Going to pipe in before you're done (probably an ill advised idea, I'm at 16:15). I feel like extending de-orbit to compete with China is ill advised. If we want to compete? Launch a competitor! Trying to milk a cow that's already depleted is not only a failing expedition but also kind of an embarrassment. Plus there's the potential for complete failure.
As always, a fascinating and wonderful video!
Thinking axiom or any other Comercial endeavor will replace ISS multy country venture is day dreaming at best.... a company doesn't have the infinite money a government have and will always charge more for the similar services which will result in less progress for more money spent compared to gov. run project.
Once there is proper industry and Comercial interactions that will start changing but there is no industry in space just gov. Contracts and gimik one of projects and missions.
3001sub!
Yes! Decades of microgravity research with pretty much nothing to show except how terrible microgravity is for humans, but the simple engineering solution is absolutely verboten. COME ON.
infrastructure
Shame about all that banging the mic is picking up.
Yeah, my fault, I move my hands a lot.
We are in a true “Singularity” w.rt. space (as with everything else, as Speaker Johnson realized to his horror a few hours ago). NASA has no idea what’s happening, and neither does anyone else. No one will understand what’s going on until at least a few months into 2025. Go Jared. Go Elon. Throw your monkey wrenches with gusto. BTW, Gravity was a disaster, along with Interstellar. Ugh. Imho.
Don't worry if all of this commercial space station provider can't do there job well there space x for you, a starship specifically designed like a space station can be place up there
Right now starship is just an empty cylinder in its payload area, SpaceX still would have to do all the work of designing a proper hab for a space station, then place it inside starship, so they're actually way behind others who are working on it. That's not to say that they can't do it, but so far they haven't done any publicly known work towards it. Hopefully the HLS work could transfer over to making starship into a space station module, but it would still be a ton of useless additional mass since there's no plan to convert the methalox tanks into something, just ideas
@@dapeach06 Don't burst his bubble. He thinks Musk is a genius.
@@dapeach06 I think SpaceX is a lot closer to a Starship space station than it is to HLS. A space station just needs to orbit and sustain long-term habitation, where as what they imagine their lunar lander to be is going to be a nightmare for plumbing to say the least.
@@12pentaboraneNope.
@@dphuntsman I think we can both agree that the current Starship design is nowhere close to what SpaceX has submitted for their HLS bid. I think we can also agree that landing a vehicle like Starship on the moon is a lot more complicated than just inserting it into LEO. At the same time, while it's not SpaceX the partnership of countries involved with ISS has generated a talent pool specialized in the life support systems needed that SpaceX can hire from. SpaceX can not do that for 50+ ton lunar landers, it's an unexplored field. That leads me to believe if we're 10 years from Lunar Starship we're probably only 5 years away from SpaceX's Skylab.
OK--------------. Using the ISS as a mother station to Start the NEW Station is the Worst Idea I have Ever Heard of... Expanding the ISS or even starting from the ISS would LOCK America into the WORST Obit to possibly be in as the Inclination is too high to efficiently reach it from Lunch sights closer to the EQUATOR including Florida without Considerable Penalties in Grose Cargo Weight capabilities... the ISS is also at such a high angle that it is very expensive to get Lunar or even Mars transfer orbits from it... An Equatorial Station would increase launch payloads by 10% while being efficiently lined up to reach both Lunar orbit and Mars. So Down with the ISS. And UP with a new Station at the BEST orbit Possible for Humanity...!!! I really do not give a rat's Ass about the Russians or China being able cheaply to reach the New International Station... I do care about being able to launch to and land from the New ISS on each and every orbit instead of waiting for the only daily orbit that matches with the ISS Orbit or the landing area back on Earth...
because Axiom is running out of money and has no customers