A New Era in Orbit: Building Commercial Space Stations after the ISS
The International Space Station (ISS) has been humanity’s home in space for nearly a quarter century. Since its first modules were launched in 1998 and crew began rotating aboard in 2000, the ISS grew into a sprawling laboratory larger than a six-bedroom house, covering an area about the size of a football field. It was built piece-by-piece by five international partners (the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada) through 27 Space Shuttle missions, countless rockets and 161 spacewalks. The station has conducted thousands of experiments in microgravity – from medical and biotechnology research to materials science and Earth observation – and seen nearly 300 astronauts and cosmonauts from 23 countries live and work in its modules.
The International Space Station (ISS) is a modular outpost assembled in orbit by an international team. The ISS has been continuously crewed since 2000, but its construction has introduced wear and tear and its retirement is now planned. (Credit: NASA)
However, the ISS is not immortal. Its hardware is aging, and by the late 2020s NASA and its partners plan to retire and safely de-orbit the station. Today the ISS is approved to operate through 2030 – and perhaps a few years beyond – but the writing is on the wall: a new generation of outposts must take its place. The upcoming “post-ISS” era promises to be very different. Rather than a single, massive government-built laboratory, the next generation of orbiting stations is expected to be led by private companies. NASA’s vision for the future is as a customer, buying services from commercially owned stations, instead of owning and operating the platforms itself. In effect, the space agency wants the next U.S. space station to be built by industry, so that NASA can focus on pushing humanity farther into the solar system while still ensuring Americans and international partners have a presence in low-Earth orbit.
The End of the ISS and the Dawn of Commercial Stations
The decision to transition from the ISS to commercial platforms has deep roots. Since the Shuttle era, NASA has increasingly turned to private firms for access to LEO (low Earth orbit). In recent years, commercial rockets now haul cargo (SpaceX Dragon, Northrop’s Cygnus) and even astronauts (SpaceX Crew Dragon, Boeing Starliner) to the ISS. NASA’s plan is to continue this trend: in 2021 it began funding privately designed Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD), awarding Space Act Agreements to industry to design the next stations. By mid-2024, NASA and Congress had committed to keep the ISS flying through 2030, but only if private stations are on the horizon to take over. As one agency memo explained, the goal is a “seamless transition” to a robust private orbiting economy, with NASA as “one of many” customers.
Among NASA’s first steps was to contract with Axiom Space to attach and then detach commercial modules. In 2020 NASA awarded Axiom a contract to build and attach a habitat module to the ISS. The plan: Axiom’s modules will dock to the ISS, operate as part of the station for a time, and then (post-ISS) separate into a free-flying Axiom Station owned by the company. In parallel, NASA funded three design studies (Blue Origin/Sierra Space’s Orbital Reef, Nanoracks/Voyager’s Starlab, and Northrop Grumman’s concept) to develop fully independent commercial stations. Space policy experts note that by fostering competition among these concepts, NASA hopes to ensure at least one or more survive to carry on the science and commerce of orbit.
From Government to Industry: Why Private Space Stations?
Why the push for private stations? Cost is a big part of it. Operating the ISS costs the U.S. around $3–4 billion per year (with additional contributions from partners). As the station ages, maintenance costs rise. Shifting the burden to industry theoretically lowers NASA’s bills. More importantly, it aims to seed a space economy. If companies can run stations to serve governments, researchers and tourists, then NASA can buy rides or resources as needed instead of owning the facility. The hope is that multiple companies will create a competitive market in orbiting habitats – driving innovation and lowering costs over time, much as private rockets have done for launches.
This approach mirrors NASA’s earlier “Commercial Crew” and “Commercial Cargo” programs. By giving firms contracts and partnerships, the agency jump-started SpaceX and Boeing’s development of crew vehicles, for example. Likewise for LEO stations, NASA is offering funding and guaranteed business (like buying crew time) to help companies build their orbital outposts. NASA also benefits from tapping the creativity of Silicon Valley-style industry. Private companies claim they can design stations faster and more flexibly than big government programs. And should NASA’s needs grow – for example, more microgravity manufacturing or an expanded astronaut training facility – the market of station operators might accommodate that demand.
Behind the scenes, geopolitics is also a motivator. The ISS is a joint project with Russia, but relations have soured in recent years. Russia now plans its own national station (the “Russian Orbital Service Station”) to start launching around 2027 and has signaled it may depart the ISS program after 2024. Meanwhile, China is building its own Tiangong space station, fully crewed since 2023, inviting some international cooperation (though Western astronauts have so far been kept off for political reasons). The United States would rather not hand virtual ownership of orbit to rivals. By spinning up commercial U.S. stations – potentially open to international users – NASA hopes to ensure any loss of the Russian partnership doesn’t leave the U.S. without an American-led platform in space. In short, private stations are seen as a way to maintain American and allied leadership in LEO even after the ISS era ends.
Axiom Station: The First Commercial Successor
The front-runner in the private station race is Axiom Space of Houston, Texas. Axiom’s plan has been clear: build a series of space station modules and attach them to the ISS, then peel them off into an independent station (the Axiom Station) when time comes. In 2020 NASA selected Axiom to attach the first private module. The company’s modules – a mix of living quarters, labs and utility sections – are under construction in partnership with established space hardware builders (for example, Italy’s Thales Alenia Space is fabricating key segments).
Initially Axiom planned to build a habitat first, then a power-thermal module. But in late 2024 Axiom announced it had accelerated the sequence: instead of habitat first, they’ll launch a Payload Power Thermal Module (AxPPTM) to the ISS in 2026, connect it, and quickly detach it. This would give Axiom a functioning “core” early. That leaves more time (perhaps until 2028) to deliver the rest of the modules, which will dock to the new Axiom Station in orbit. In practice, Axiom Station will grow in stages: as modules are added on orbit, the facility expands, like Legos in space.
By revising its plan, Axiom now expects its own free-flying station to become operational as early as 2028, about two years sooner than earlier targets. Once detached from the ISS, Axiom Station will house commercial astronauts and experiments just like the ISS does today. It’s designed for a broad customer base: NASA will remain a user (buying crew time or lab space), but others – research institutes, industry labs, and even tourists – can book missions as well. The company is already selling flights to private citizens (through SpaceX Crew Dragon) and aims to have paying customers launch to Axiom Station.
Axiom isn’t stopping at modules. The company also entered NASA’s program to build next-generation
spacesuits and will offer those to any missions on Axiom Station or future Moon missions. In effect, Axiom is positioning itself as a kind of “Space City,” providing everything from habitats to suits to training for the post-ISS era. If all goes well, the first Axiom segments will detach from the ISS around 2030, just as the old station is decommissioned, enabling continuity in human presence.
Key features of Axiom Station include:
-
Modular growth: Starting with a power/thermal core in 2026, followed by additional labs and living quarters.
-
Crewed capability: Life support and sleeping quarters for up to four people initially, growing as modules are added.
-
Market: NASA as anchor customer, plus private research labs, manufacturing firms, and high-paying space tourists.
-
Timing: First module on ISS in 2026, independent free-flyer by ~2028, full station after 2030.
-
Partners: Thales Alenia Space (Italy) builds modules; SpaceX provides launches and crew transport; NASA provided initial contract funding
Orbital Reef: Blue Origin’s “Space Business Park”
Another major contender is Orbital Reef, the brainchild of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’s space company Blue Origin, in partnership with Sierra Space (a spin-off of Sierra Nevada Corporation) and a consortium including Boeing, Redwire Space, Genesis Engineering and Arizona State University. When announced in late 2021, Blue Origin billed Orbital Reef as a “mixed-use space business park” – essentially a scalable, modular space station catering to many kinds of tenants.
Orbital Reef was envisioned to be large and versatile. Its baseline design (as depicted by Blue Origin) includes a Core Module with living areas, energy mast and docking ports, a LIFE habitat module (big inflatable modules from Sierra), a Science module from Boeing, and more. It would initially support about 6 crew members, with capacity to grow to 10 or more. The total pressurized volume was announced as roughly 830 m³ (the ISS by comparison is about 916 m³). Multiple docking ports and standardized rack systems would let dozens of science experiments, manufacturing racks, or even small business offices plug in. Sierra’s LIFE modules (used in NASA’s Dream Chaser spaceplane project) would provide roomy labs and habitat space, while Blue Origin would supply the large launch vehicles (New Glenn rocket) and core systems. Blue’s subsidiary Bezos said launch of Orbital Reef operations “in the second half of this decade” (i.e., around 2027–2030).
Orbital Reef secured NASA support early on: in December 2021 NASA gave Blue Origin a $130 million Space Act Agreement to develop design and prototypes (alongside grants to Starlab and Northrop Grumman). Blue Origin and Sierra touted the station as a “premier commercial destination” – open to governments, companies, universities and even wealthy individuals. It promised “end-to-end services”: ride to orbit (using Dream Chaser spaceplanes or other rockets), a plug-and-play space module with utilities, and amenities like panoramic windows and even a one-person “spacecraft” (from Genesis Engineering) for doing extravehicular excursions or tourist missions.
However, Orbital Reef’s journey has hit turbulence. By late 2023 reports emerged that Blue Origin was reassigning much of its Orbital Reef staff to other projects (like its lunar lander) and that a shake-up was underway. Sources indicated that Blue Origin and Sierra Space were having disputes and that the program had fallen behind schedule. Blue’s leadership said Sierra would remain a partner but unclear in what role. (Reuters reported Blue’s point person on the project was leaving the company.) In response, Sierra Space continued to assert its commitment, having just raised large sums of private funding for Orbital Reef in 2021.
Despite those hiccups, development continues on some fronts. Blue Origin has been testing large station components – for example, in 2023-24 the company completed structural pressure tests on a prototype “Core” module section and verified the strength of huge acrylic windows intended to face Earth (twice the width of a car windshield). These milestones, reported by NASA, suggest that at least some of the Orbital Reef hardware is materializing. The partnership also brought in Amazon Web Services for station computing and proposed using Indian rockets or even India’s crew capsule (Gaganyaan) to ferry tourists in the future.
Orbital Reef’s key concepts include:
-
Large mixed-use facility: Up to ~10 people; a “business park” in the sky where labs, factories and hotels co-exist.
-
Modular architecture: Core, LIFE habitat, science and logistics modules; a single person rescue/tour spacecraft.
-
Transportation: Dream Chaser spaceplanes for crew/cargo; Blue Origin’s New Glenn or ULA rockets for modules.
-
Unique features: Multiple big observation windows; reusable systems to cut costs; an open interface for many payloads.
-
Challenges: High complexity and current internal reorganizing; reliance on New Glenn (still in development); competition for a small market.
Orbital Reef exemplifies the ambition (and risk) of commercial stations. If successful, it could be the roomiest private outpost yet. But its timeline remains uncertain, and it may slip toward the 2030 horizon. NASA’s funding and intent to buy services from Orbital Reef (or others) could help stabilize it; at the least, Blue Origin’s project has sparked attention to the concept of commerce in space, even if its exact form may shift.
A Crowded Orbit: Geopolitics of Commercial Stations
The commercialization of LEO infrastructure is reshaping space geopolitics. For decades, the ISS was a symbol of Cold War rivals cooperating peacefully – an American module attached to a Russian module, European and Japanese labs working side by side. In the post-ISS world, cooperation and competition will mix in new ways.
First, consider national interests. The United States, through NASA, is clearly betting on private enterprise but will remain the lead consumer of LEO labs. American astronauts will likely fly on these commercial stations (via SpaceX or Boeing) just as they do on the ISS today. Europe has committed to that path too: ESA signed a deal in 2023 to use Starlab, ensuring European astronauts and experiments stay in orbit. Japan, which invested heavily in the ISS’s Kibo lab, is exploring building a successor LEO facility, possibly in partnership with NASA or commercial ventures. Meanwhile India has its own plan: ISRO has announced aspirations to build a national space station by 2035. This means Indian astronauts (the first is scheduled for 2025 under a NASA ride) could in future operate both the Indian station and possibly visit western commercial stations.
China, which was excluded from the ISS, has forged its own course with the Tiangong station (three modules in place by 2023). Tiangong is entirely government-run, but China has invited international partners (for example, Italy is sending experiments). If the West’s ISS goes away, China’s station may attract countries that want low-cost access to microgravity labs but aren’t part of NASA’s club. For example, NASA is barred by law from cooperating with China, but smaller nations like Iran or Saudi Arabia might find China’s program appealing. In short, as American cooperation with Russia recedes, China may claim more influence in LEO via Tiangong. That prospect worries some U.S. strategists, who view orbital presence as part of broad space competition.
Russia adds another twist. Moscow long ago helped build ISS modules, but now plans to leave the partnership around 2025. Instead, Roscosmos is designing a new “Russian Orbital Service Station” (ROSS) to launch starting in 2027. Early details suggest ROSS will have a polar orbit for Earth observation, serving national rather than international needs. Russian sources say their first crewed missions to ROSS could begin by 2028. If Russia departs the ISS, it will no longer host NASA astronauts (currently they still share rides on U.S. vehicles). This decoupling was unimaginable a few years ago, but today NASA is finally pushing a commercial fallback to avoid a post-2024 gap.
Even within the U.S. sphere, rivalry may emerge: NASA’s strategy of having multiple companies compete implies not all can survive. Some in the industry and government wonder aloud whether the LEO market can support four separate stations (Axiom, Orbital Reef, Starlab, Haven-1) plus a few smaller ones. It’s possible some will merge, or some concepts may never fly. There’s also debate about fair play in space. Who controls standards, traffic management and even regulations for these new stations? The U.S. is moving to certify private station safety under NASA oversight, but stations will still float above many nations, raising questions of jurisdiction (similar to undersea cables or global shipping lanes).
Finally, alliances may reshape. In 2023, as President Biden and Prime Minister Modi noted NASA-ISRO ties, India announced talks with Boeing, Blue Origin and Voyager for partnerships. India may contribute rockets (or even a crew capsule) to help launch or crew foreign stations, in exchange for seats. Likewise, NASA’s Artemis Accords – a vision for peaceful space collaboration – could extend to LEO, encouraging signatories to be involved in each other’s stations. We may soon see a “space NATO” of sorts, where groups of nations guarantee continuity of each other’s orbital labs, or divide use of port slots.
Technology, Economics and Regulation: The High Bar
Building and running a space station is not easy – even for commercial companies. The technological hurdles are immense. A station needs reliable life-support systems (air, water recycling, waste management) akin to a closed ecosystem. International partners spent decades perfecting the ISS’s Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS); startups are now trying to compress that R&D into years, not decades. Radiation protection is another issue: at ISS altitudes, crew get about ten times the annual background radiation dose of someone on Earth. New stations must build in shielding to protect long-duration occupants.
Docking technology is critical. Each station must safely receive visiting vehicles – the SpaceX Dragon, Boeing Starliner, Russian Soyuz and Progress ships, etc. Designs need standardized docking ports and be able to handle the forces of docking. In some cases, stations plan to use the new International Docking System Standard (IDSS), but private stations also propose creative solutions (for example, single-person “spacecraft” for short excursions to the station). Automation and robotics will help with assembly and maintenance; Blue Origin’s Genesis crew vehicle (for Orbital Reef) and Boeing’s potential use of commercial crew capsules for Starlab show how robotics and human flight blend.
On the economic side, the challenges may be even steeper. Space station projects cost billions. The ISS itself has cost over $100 billion (including construction and operations). Commercial stations are smaller, but still require huge upfront investment. Companies like Axiom and VAST have secured seed funding, while Orbital Reef partners raised hundreds of millions for development. But they hope to recoup by selling time and space. Will there be enough customers? NASA will buy some services (crew accommodations, experiments), and government agencies from allies might buy rides. Space agencies may launch experiments for biology, materials or Earth observation. Industry could use microgravity for drug development or high-tech manufacturing.
Space tourism is a wild card. Axiom, Orbital Reef and VAST all plan to host private astronauts – wealthy tourists willing to pay tens of millions for a flight to orbit. But the number of customers is very limited. After a couple of billionaire trips (Space Adventures arranged an ISS trip at $35 million in 2021, and Axiom has already flown private missions), it’s unclear how mass-market tourism can become a steady income. Early users might be sponsors, media projects or even reality TV, but not a breadwinner. Indeed, experts caution that research will remain the bread-and-butter for years. A station that cuts its teeth on specialized R&D may later add tourism as a bonus, but the initial market is likely experiments and industrial usage.
Regulatory and legal issues loom large as well. In the U.S., NASA’s Commercial Low Earth Orbit (CLD) program is coordinating safety standards, but the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also have a say (e.g., in launch licensing and radio frequencies). Stations must get permission to launch heavy modules (FAA) and to operate communications relays (FCC). If a company sells a “bed in orbit,” what checks ensure that everyone using it meets health and training standards? NASA is developing certification processes (similar to how it certifies crew for Dragon flights), but it’s a complex mix of public and private authority.
Internationally, the Outer Space Treaty governs ownership (“outer space is not subject to national appropriation”) and liability (the launching state is responsible for damage). A private station will have to navigate which country’s laws apply on board. For example, if Axiom Station is founded by an American company but hosts an international crew, is it U.S. jurisdiction? Historically, parts of the ISS were governed by the law of the agency that launched them. Axiom’s modules were delivered by SpaceX, so likely are U.S. territory. That means U.S. law applies there. Even so, if a European experiment is installed, its intellectual property and control can be spelled out in contracts, but messy interactions are possible. These are new questions; governments may have to negotiate frameworks so that a French or Indian scientist can use a U.S.-based private lab in orbit without legal headache.
Space debris is another concern. Each new station adds structure in orbit that could be struck by junk. Companies must plan de-orbit vehicles. NASA, for example, contracted SpaceX to build a tug that will push the ISS into the atmosphere at end-of-life. Commercial station operators will need a similar plan (VAST’s Haven-1 has a limited lifetime and then will be deorbited by SpaceX’s craft). Clear regulatory requirements for debris and end-of-life disposal will be enforced by authorities like the FAA and agencies in other nations. In short, even as operations shift to private hands, governments will remain involved to oversee that these stations don’t cause harm.
Lastly, there are market risks: suppose too many stations vie for too few customers. One or more companies could run out of money before completing their station. Already some backers were rumored to balk at Orbital Reef’s delays. Conversely, if one station captures enough demand, it could become a monopoly – driving ticket prices up and stifling competition. NASA’s strategy of funding multiple providers is partly to avoid that scenario. But it remains to be seen whether the orbiting outposts will prove a sustainable business. Some analysts compare it to cruise ships on Earth: once in orbit, a station needs to attract tourism dollars and freight business to stay afloat. The prize of low-Earth orbit is big, but so are the costs and risks.
The Road Ahead
As of 2025, the transition to a post-ISS era is well underway but far from settled. Here’s a snapshot of the likely timeline:
-
2026: Axiom plans to launch its first module (a power/thermal core) to the ISS. VAST aims to launch Haven-1 by late 2026. NASA is expected to issue a second round of agreements (Phase 2) for station development, potentially certifying one or two designs for NASA use.
-
2027–2028: Axiom will attach its remaining modules to ISS and prepare to detach. Starlab is scheduled (subject to change) to launch around 2027–2028. Orbital Reef was targeting operations in this window, though delays may push it later. Russia’s new station ROSS could see its first module launch in 2027. China may add more modules or experiments to Tiangong.
-
2030: The ISS is slated for retirement around this year. Ideally, at least one or two commercial stations (Axiom Station, and perhaps Starlab or Haven-2) will be fully operational by then, so NASA and partners can decommission the ISS without gap. If all goes to plan, astronauts aboard Axiom or Starlab in 2031 might feel like they’ve simply moved to new quarters in space.
-
2030–2035: The commercial LEO ecosystem settles in. We may see consolidation (like Voyager/Airbus merging Starlab teams or others partnering). New stations like VAST’s Haven-2, or additional modules for Orbital Reef and Axiom, could enlarge capabilities. International crews routinely cross commercial station thresholds. The first launches of modules by SpaceX’s Starship (if it succeeds) could greatly expand capacity, perhaps building much larger stations even before 2040.
In this future, Earth’s orbit could become as routine a destination as Antarctica or the International Space Station’s Earth-viewing domes once felt alien. Space tourists might sail between stations like yachts, researchers might book months-long missions on commercial labs, and small nations might subscribe to seats as easily as buying satellites.
But whether reality meets the grand visions remains to be seen. Building in space has always been harder than building on Earth. The first few commercial space stations will be pioneering ventures. They may face delays, technical hurdles and market surprises. Some companies may merge or fold. Yet the momentum is clear: governments no longer intend to be sole landlords in LEO. Instead, a hybrid model is emerging – government as client, industry as builder.
At stake is not just economic opportunity but strategic presence. The world watched for 20+ years as five space agencies cooperated on the ISS. In the next chapter, a handful of companies – anchored by NASA contracts but driven by profit motives – will take the lead. If they succeed, low Earth orbit will host a fleet of stations, each with its own name and flair, much like cruise liners on Earth’s oceans. This could democratize access to space in unprecedented ways. On the other hand, if the private ventures falter, it could leave a void that Chinese or Russian stations fill, reshaping the balance of power off-planet.
