Axiom Space Station

Axiom Space is hosting private missions to the ISS, starting in 2021. They are adding modules to the International Space Station. Axiom will separate their modules from the Space Station around 2024-2030. They will have first commercial space station in our solar system starting in 2024, to ensure a brighter future for everyone on Earth and set our course for life beyond it. The ISS will be in space until 2026-2030. The ISS will last until 2030 if it gets extended operation support.

The leadership team includes world-class, specialized expertise in commercial utilization of microgravity, on-orbit operations, astronaut training, space medicine, space system architecture/design/development, engineering, marketing, and law.

The four radial bulkheads for the first Axiom hub module are currently being machined in Europe by our partner Thales Alenia Space (TASI). These bulkheads provide the structure to which our radial common berth mechanisms (CBMs) and hatches will attach. Together, the four bulkheads with their accompanying hardware form a cylindrical section, providing four ports to which other station elements – including docking adapters – can attach. The cylindrical protrusions seen on the bottom half of the bulkhead will become pass-throughs, allowing power, data, and fluids to pass from one element to another, including between Axiom hub and ISS.

Axiom will be able to generate the same amount of power as the ISS using 6 times fewer solar panels. This is due to the improvements in solar panel efficiency in the decades since the ISS was put together.

Each module can be their own independent space vehicle.

They have a long term vision for thousands in space.

SOURCES- Limitless Space Institute, Axiom Space
Written By Brian Wang, Nextbigfuture.com

36 thoughts on “Axiom Space Station”

  1. You guys are hilarious.
    Obviously there's some philosophical differences we could get into, like Keynesian economics or the tragedy of the commons, but instead you take the most blatantly obvious part of what I said and inscrutably disagreed with it.

    Reply
  2. "There’s just no way that microgravity can make a researcher 10,000 times as productive, no matter what the question might be." He is infinitely more productive if micr0g is needed for the experiment. 0 productivity is exactly 0. Also, the stuff Handmer recommends is O'Neill thru and thru, not on a planet surface, NOT MARS. The big stuff cited is examples of O'Neill things to do, not *the* idea. Doing O'Neill even under the wrong name is a good thing.

    Reply
  3. "hasn't ever" LOL, no.

    But 99.8% of the roads you and I ride on are owned by some level of government (federal, state, county, municipality). Including toll ways. Most of the private roads in existence (owned, operated, on private land) are unpaved logging roads. There might be a few HOAs that own and maintain their roads within a small subdivision.

    Before the government put together a plan, most roads outside of a city were just dirt paths at the edges of farmer's fields. It took days to cross a state, and no maps or consistent signage.

    Governments are useful, that's why all countries have them. Obviously they need limits and accountability, like all human endeavors.

    Reply
  4. True. If things are done right there is a lot of money that can be made in space, rolling forward our space program with minimal government expenditure.

    Reply
  5. And government bodies have built cars. But there is a clear trend towards each type specialising in what suits their strengths.

    Reply
  6. thanks for your profound words, Oprah.
    but seriously, like any business: price points and access.
    For this, safety, risk, and prep considerations matter.

    Reply
  7. While the first Axiom modules are built by old space, and thus likely quite expensive (Billion+?) its still a 10x reduction from ISS pricetag. This however will still limit the research and manufacturing in low orbit considerably. It is however still a great start.

    I would like to see these prices move to the 100million range which would be getting close to high tech lab cost, allowing likely very rapid growth in these as production and research costs fall into range where many multinational corporations and even universities can afford. Hopefully were just 10+ years or so out from that timeframe

    https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/11/10/the-case-for-space-stations/

    Reply
  8. I'm pretty sure the LEO "Gateway" station, or one of the proposals, does that for lunar grav at least, perhaps even Mars. This is not the HALO "Gateway", btw. However, in "The High Frontier", O'Neill points out that the Earth surface is not as good as Space, which would have full g rotation avail if desired. Micr0g is only avail in Space. Same for full sunlight, vacuum, the vastness space itself even! If Earth is not good enuf, Mars and Moon are surely not. They are also tiny compared to Space Habs in total.

    Reply
  9. I would like to see something in orbit, under the van allen belts, that rotates to simulate Moon and Mars gravity (inner and outer habs). Wouldn't have to be a full ring, could just be hab stations, a hub, and a counterweight.

    We could do all our gravity testing there, see what effects that would have on short visits and multi-generation colonies (using mice and such for initial tests).

    Then we can decide if the Moon or Mars (or neither) is the best answer for colonization or large numbers of visitors.

    Reply
  10. Not entirely. Cars are free market. Roads are government responsibility. Sometimes collaboration between the two is needed.

    Reply
  11. On the subject of space launchers and space plans, I've learned to trust in built hardware only.

    PPTs and speeches are just air. We have had enough of that for decades.

    So to whomever talks about great space plans I'd ask: where's the hardware?

    That's why I believe Axiom can be the real deal: they are making plans with the top hardware seller.

    Reply
  12. If he was going to sit on his hands, he could have done that with the Falcon. 

    After the Starship is working, the next stage is a larger diameter Starship; They can go quite a ways in that direction before they run into problems.

    Not taller, though, they're about at the limit for that, given their engines.

    Reply
  13. Don't know about now but once Starship is in production at scale, it's not like they're gonna sit on their hands.

    Reply
  14. All that stuff has potential, but if you got working on it right now, Starship's still going to have a decent run, given development times.

    Wonder if Musk has a small team working out what the next thing is, so that they can get in on that, too?

    Reply
  15. Those are all a lot more speculative than Starship at this point, especially Skylon. All they really have at this point is a heat exchanger, right?

    And, anyway, Skylon, as planned, is a Falcon 9 killer. Larger payload and cheaper.

    It's nothing like a Starship killer, having a much smaller payload and higher projected costs.

    I could see it supplanting the Falcon 9 for manned launches, if they can get it up and running before Starship has been man rated. But even that strikes me as unlikely, given that Starship is probably going to make orbit before Skylon even has a working engine.

    Reply
  16. Now, the big current decision is whether the surface of a planet, the Moon now, is the right place for a lunar base? Or do we want to build and test one of these Axiom thingys in LEO and tug it to HALO, where lunar water or rego can be added for radiation. Continue the micr0g mfg, near the resources. What were we going to do on the Moon surface, other than practice for Mars? And what on Mars? Think!

    Reply
  17. Space is a target rich environment. If the target is cool new stuff. Both ISS and SS are entirely derived from Mars plans. ISS has accidentally turned into a micr0g lab with crew attending the experiments. Can't do micr0g on Mars. SS is to ferry people to Mars. Period. But O'Neill has always been *Axiom*atic!

    Reply
  18. -Assemble things like Webb in Space rather than fold and launch, save $$$$.
    -Build large(too big to launch) rigid light frames, DARPA plan, launch less material and then additive mfg. save $$$. Frames for Webb like things, esp big flat surfaces for radar. Add in lunar materials.
    -Space Solar, what to do to help Earth! Make $$$$$!!!!!!

    Reply
  19. SOD? Standing Oblique Detonation ram, mass driver launch to ignition speed. Rotovator capture to orbit. The usual stuff.

    Reply
  20. Before any of this, Starship needs to become operational, but does anyone really doubt SpaceX will succeed?

    We're going on as if the Starship will become the workhorse that was promised, but it could end up rendered obsolete faster than one might imagine by other technogical developments such the jet-ramjet-rocket hybrids others are trying to develop.

    Reply
  21. Yep. SpaceX has directly and indirectly revolutionized space. Everyone is wanting to go reusable or risk going bust.

    Reply
  22. Yep. Build roads and cars and someone will use them.

    I don't know… That's sounding an awful lot like free market capitalism to me, and we can't have any of that, comrade.

    Reply
  23. Yep. Build roads and cars and someone will use them.

    Build affordable and reliable rockets and someone will use them too.

    This is the result of SpaceX partially reusable F9 revolution. Starship will only make things easier for companies like Axiom.

    Reply
  24. That will be a good ROI for the ISS to become a launching pad for private space stations toward the end of its life. This is a good way to free the tax payer from paying for building space stations.

    Reply

Leave a Comment