The U.S. is in the throes of sorting out what to do when the ISS comes back to Earth. Maybe that’s in 2030, as long has been expected, or maybe the laboratory can keep on truckin’ for a couple more years beyond that. Regardless, NASA is looking to replace the ISS when it inevitably finishes its decades-long work in orbit — and they’re counting on private companies (bolstered by taxpayer dollars) to do it.
The argument is that private stations would cost just a sliver of the $150 billion that it cost to build the ISS. So in other words, the same service, for fewer American dollars. That’s a compelling argument, but it doesn’t address an underlying fundamental question: Why do we need to replace the ISS?
This week I caught up with an industry expert, who asked not to be named to speak freely, who put forward three answers to that question:
- Geopolitics – We can’t cede the domain to China.
- Ecosystem – We’ve already created a means of reliably transporting crew and cargo, and many other space agencies are willing to pay for access.
- Exploration & Innovation – We’ve proven with the ISS that in-space research and development is valuable, and low Earth orbit space stations serve as an easier platform.
I’ve heard the latter two reasons from the companies pushing for funding from NASA’s Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) program.
But that first explanation is eye-catching — saying the quiet part out loud.
Tiangong, that second space station in orbit, is built and run by the Chinese. They began launching the station in pieces in 2021 and it currently hosts three taikonauts at a time, with plans to further expand its scale and operate it well into the 2030s.
The peaceful exploration and commercialization of space should always be the industry’s goal, but you can’t ignore the unfortunate but existing reality that space has always been a warfighting domain, as much as land or sea.
Ideally, NASA also gets more than one space station. My industry expert estimated there could be two flying for half the ISS’ $4 billion a year operating cost. And they argued that “you’ll be able to unleash a lot of potential opportunity” by running it like a business that’s looking to facilitate R&D and materials science in a commercial way.
Furthermore, my expert pointed out that new space stations don’t have to fly in the ISS’ orbit, since they wouldn’t need to be in reach of Soyuz launches, and could fly in orbits that are cheaper and easier to get to, or even lower. Additionally, the new proliferation of inter-satellite links would give these stations access to 24/7 bandwidth from constellations like SpaceX’s Starlink.
There’s a variety of different stations vying to be the ISS’ successor, whether Axiom, Starlab, Vast or Orbital Reef. But as the future of NASA’s CLD program evolves, and companies look for more backing, I won’t be surprised to hear the don’t-cede-LEO-to-China argument grow louder from those in D.C.
