Axiom hires Redwire to build the solar panels for its first station module
Axiom’s assembly sequence for its planned station, initially attached to ISS but subsequently detached
The space station startup Axiom today announced that it has signed an agreement with the space hardware company Redwire to build the solar panels for its first station module, now under construction.
The companies announced Sept. 25 that Redwire will provide a version of its Roll-Out Solar Array, or ROSA, to Axiom for use on Axiom Station’s Payload Power Thermal Module, known as AxPPTM. AxPPTM is the first module Axiom plans to launch for its commercial station. Under a revised assembly schedule announced last December, AxPPTM will berth with one of two ports on the International Space Station used by Cygnus cargo spacecraft.
It would remain there until Axiom launches a second module, called Hab1. At that point, AxPPTM would unberth from the ISS and dock with Hab1, forming the initial station that can support four-person crews. Axiom would later add more modules.
At present Axiom is targeting a 2026 launch of the AxPPTM module. The hull, built by Thales Alenia, is presently being tested in Europe, and is expected to shipped to Houston for integration later this year.
The four commercial stations under development, ranked by me based on their present level of progress:
- Haven-1, being built by Vast, with no NASA funds. The company is moving fast, with Haven-1 to launch in 2026 for a three-year period during which it will be occupied by four 2-week-long manned missions. Initially the company hoped flying actual hardware and manned missions would put it in the lead to win NASA’s phase 2 contract to build its much larger mult-module Haven-2 station. Now it is in an even better position to win one of the smaller development contracts NASA intends to issue.
- Axiom, being built by Axiom, has launched four tourist flights to ISS, with the fourth carrying government passengers from India, Hungary, and Poland. Though there have been rumors it has cash flow issues, development of its first module has been proceeding more or less as planned, with hull completed and presently undergoing testing and a contract for its solar panels issued to Redwire.
- Starlab, being built by a consortium led by Voyager Space, Airbus, and Northrop Grumman, with extensive partnership agreements with the European Space Agency and others. Its station design has been approved by NASA, but it has built nothing. The deal with Vivace however suggests some construction is about to move forward, especially because the company has raised $383 million in a public stock offering in addition to the $217.5 million provided by NASA.
- Orbital Reef, being built by a consortium led by Blue Origin and Sierra Space. Overall, Blue Origin has built almost nothing, while Sierra Space has successfully tested its inflatable modules, including a full scale version, and appears ready to start building its module for launch.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Axiom’s assembly sequence for its planned station, initially attached to ISS but subsequently detached
The space station startup Axiom today announced that it has signed an agreement with the space hardware company Redwire to build the solar panels for its first station module, now under construction.
The companies announced Sept. 25 that Redwire will provide a version of its Roll-Out Solar Array, or ROSA, to Axiom for use on Axiom Station’s Payload Power Thermal Module, known as AxPPTM. AxPPTM is the first module Axiom plans to launch for its commercial station. Under a revised assembly schedule announced last December, AxPPTM will berth with one of two ports on the International Space Station used by Cygnus cargo spacecraft.
It would remain there until Axiom launches a second module, called Hab1. At that point, AxPPTM would unberth from the ISS and dock with Hab1, forming the initial station that can support four-person crews. Axiom would later add more modules.
At present Axiom is targeting a 2026 launch of the AxPPTM module. The hull, built by Thales Alenia, is presently being tested in Europe, and is expected to shipped to Houston for integration later this year.
The four commercial stations under development, ranked by me based on their present level of progress:
- Haven-1, being built by Vast, with no NASA funds. The company is moving fast, with Haven-1 to launch in 2026 for a three-year period during which it will be occupied by four 2-week-long manned missions. Initially the company hoped flying actual hardware and manned missions would put it in the lead to win NASA’s phase 2 contract to build its much larger mult-module Haven-2 station. Now it is in an even better position to win one of the smaller development contracts NASA intends to issue.
- Axiom, being built by Axiom, has launched four tourist flights to ISS, with the fourth carrying government passengers from India, Hungary, and Poland. Though there have been rumors it has cash flow issues, development of its first module has been proceeding more or less as planned, with hull completed and presently undergoing testing and a contract for its solar panels issued to Redwire.
- Starlab, being built by a consortium led by Voyager Space, Airbus, and Northrop Grumman, with extensive partnership agreements with the European Space Agency and others. Its station design has been approved by NASA, but it has built nothing. The deal with Vivace however suggests some construction is about to move forward, especially because the company has raised $383 million in a public stock offering in addition to the $217.5 million provided by NASA.
- Orbital Reef, being built by a consortium led by Blue Origin and Sierra Space. Overall, Blue Origin has built almost nothing, while Sierra Space has successfully tested its inflatable modules, including a full scale version, and appears ready to start building its module for launch.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Given ISS Program plans to attach the initial Axiom modules to ISS for a time, the obvious question is what (if anything) from ISS goes with Axiom when the rest is detached and deorbited. I can imagine at least some international partner interest in keeping around some of the newer modules, and Axiom interest in the potential additional cash flow.
I seem to recall that the original plan for Axiom’s station was that it be fully assembled while still berthed to ISS and then detached as a fully stand-alone unit. But that, of course, was before Vast came out of nowhere and began nipping at Axiom’s heels. NASA’s concerns about the potential of a life-shortening event befalling ISS prior to its intended and controlled demise might be part of the reason for Axiom’s recent revisions to its assembly order and the far-briefer-and less-extensive-than-previously-intended term of service as an add-on to ISS, but I suspect the sight of Vast coming up fast in the rear view mirror was an even bigger consideration.
That said, the revision to the order of module assembly would seem to present some problems. First, is the actual schedule. How fast can Axiom get all of its needed modules built? Can it have all five on-orbit by the time ISS goes into the drink?
And what sorts of customers and missions can Axiom Station support during its – possibly lengthy – incremental construction? An initial stand-alone station consisting of just the PPTM and a single hab module might do as a strictly tourist destination, but the science stuff will all or mostly go in the last module destined for attachment – whenever that happens. In between times, the addition of the airlock and second hab modules seem to make the station merely a larger tourist destination. It’s hard to see NASA being able to justify sending astronauts to a place where little or no science can be done. The facilities of real interest to NASA will be the last to arrive according to the revised assembly plan.
But the panoramic cupola will also be part of this final module. Not having it on the first hab or the airlock module will compromise the station’s tourist appeal early on.
In short, Axiom seems to be getting in its own way to a fairly considerable degree anent making money. That will be especially true if the final module isn’t ready until well after ISS is decommissioned and evacuated – something that will happen well before ISS is actually de-orbited and splashed. If another station operator – Vast, say – already had even a Haven 1 or a single-module Haven 2 in service that could support science work before the lights in ISS were turned off, it would have a significant first-mover advantage over a later arrival.
It seems a bit odd to me that anyone would want to continue to use the ISS inclination, since the only reason *it* uses that is so the Russians can participate. Sure, SpaceX is in the process of making cost to orbit trivial, but wouldn’t a flatter inclination be far superior?
Can Sierra Space resell its modules to one of the others? Axiom and Vast/Haven-1 at least look like they know what they are doing.
David Ross: Yes, I think they can. And if their deal with Blue Origin presently prevents them, I would not be surprised if that deal is eventually abandoned.
”At present Axiom is targeting a 2026 launch of the AxPPTM module…”
The article you linked to says late 2027, which sounds about right considering the progress so far.
”If another station operator – Vast, say – already had even a Haven 1…in service that could support science work…”
Just the opposite. Axiom, I believe, supports standard ISS lab rack modules. Haven does not. Haven 1 provides just a couple of Shuttle mid-deck locker equivalents. It’s really just a proof of concept demonstrator as opposed to a science lab. Very cool, but nowhere near the science capability of even the Axiom private astronaut missions currently flying to the ISS every year.
I do think both will be selected, but I don’t think either will be able to take over ISS science by 2030. I’m still holding out hope of extending ISS out to 2035 as per the plan a few years ago, but the political tea leaves aren’t reading that way.
mkent wrote, “The article you linked to says late 2027, which sounds about right considering the progress so far.”
Damn I missed that. It indicates a serious delay. When they rearranged their module launch schedule in December 2024, it was expressly to get that first module up by 2026, in order to accelerate the station’s assembly and detachment from ISS by 2028. If the AxPPTM is now targeting a late 2027 launch, it means that detachment is likely not going to happen in 2028, and is beginning to look like it might not even happen by ISS’s retirement in 2030.
The article says nothing about the development of Hab1, the second module needed before Axiom’s station can be detached. Nor have I seen anything anywhere describing any work being done on it. Any info about this would be appreciated.
No matter what ISS is almost certainly going in 2030. You might wish for it to be extended, but the risks from the Zvevda module suggest 2030 is too risky already. NASA recognizes this.
”The article says nothing about the development of Hab1…”
Axiom still says Hab-1 will launch and PPTM will dock with it in 2028. Development of Hab-1 was already well underway when Axiom switched focus to the PPTM, to the point that chips were being cut on the primary structure. It’s not unreasonable to expect it to follow PPTM by about a year.
Vast is also running well behind schedule. Just last week they announced the completion of a milestone that they said in February would be complete in June. So they got about four months’ work done in seven months. Their schedule was already ambitious, so they are unlikely to make up that time.
Now that I think about it, the recent milestones for PPTM and Haven 1 were the same: completion of welds for the primary structure. The difference is that Haven 1 is a proof of concept demonstrator and not a science lab. Realistically, Axiom is still ahead on being able to take over ISS science.
”…the risks from the Zvevda module suggest 2030 is too risky already.”
I agree. The risks for *Zvezda* are too high. But an American propulsion module docked to Node 2 forward should be able to take over Zvezda’s primary function. Then the Russians can close the hatches on their side of the ISS and go home. At this point they don’t add much — just orbital reboost and CMG desaturation. The PPTM should be able to take over those functions. And with a half dozen closed hatches between the Zvezda aft port where the cracks are and no more dockings to that whole end of the station, I don’t see undue risks to the astronauts.
A. Nonymous,
There is no single “ideal” orbital inclination for space stations. The relatively high inclination of ISS, though adopted as a sop to the Russians, happens also to be a decent choice anent space tourism as it provides good views of most of the world’s landmasses and essentially all of the world’s significantly populated territory. The high inclination is also valuable for certain kinds of scientific research such as that concerned with polar auroras. Science that is inclination-agnostic can be conducted on a high-inclination space station as easily as on one with a significantly lower inclination.
mkent,
Unless Axiom intends to put at least one or two ISS lab rack units into its PPTM and/or hab modules, the fact that it intends to support this particular form factor is irrelevant to making any money in its station’s early, partially complete, form. If all of the science support goes in the last module slated for construction and attachment, my point still stands. Perhaps the science provisions of Haven 1 will be inferior to those of ISS and the eventual complete Axiom Station. But in the early going, you can’t beat something with nothing.
”Unless Axiom intends to put at least one or two ISS lab rack units into its PPTM and/or hab modules…”
My search tonight for a definitive source came up inconclusive. But all of the Axiom modules are based on the ISS modules fabricated by Thales Alenia. All of the USOS pressurized modules save BEAM are based on the original Boeing Node 1 design with a row of standard racks top, bottom, left, and right: Node 1 (four racks), Node 2 (eight racks), Node 3 (eight racks), the US Lab (15 racks*), the Eurolab (ten racks), the Japanese Lab (23 racks**), the PMM (16 racks), even the Joint Airlock Module (four racks), the Japanese PLM (eight racks), the MPLMs (16 racks), and the HTVs (eight racks).
Nodes 1 & 2 rack spaces are unpowered. Node 3 and the labs add electrical power and data connections. The US Lab adds chilled water for cooling.
Each rack is about the size of a refrigerator and has a standard interface, so any rack can fit into any rack space in any module. Most ISS systems such as ECLSS, avionics, communications gear, robotic arm controls, etc. are housed in system racks that have the same interface. That is how the astronauts were able to, for example, move the robotic arm controls from the US Lab into the cupola in just a few minutes. Stowage racks have no power but fit into the same spaces.
I couldn’t find definitive proof, but the Axiom modules are being designed by former ISS engineers at a company founded and run by a former long-term ISS program manager and built by the company that made most of the pressurized USOS modules. The station was designed to be attached to the ISS for years and be compatible with ISS systems (such as electrical power, avionics, and ECLSS). Other ISS modules were originally meant to be transferred to Axiom, and the Rafaello MPLM still is.
If Axiom *doesn’t* use standard racks, I’d like to thwap Mike Suffredini upside the head. Maybe the next time Axiom has a press conference for a private astronaut mission I’ll try to get press credentials and ask him.
*The optical window in the US Lab takes the place of one rack. **The berthing port for the PLM takes the place of one rack.
In other words we shall see what we shall see. I would like to see both Axiom and Vast succeed in establishing viable commercial destinations in LEO. Heck, I’d like to see Voyager’s Starlab up there too. Orbital Reef looks more and more to be a dead letter.
That said, Vast’s delays look pretty trivial compared to the quite leisurely pace of construction that has characterized Thales Alenia’s work for Axiom. Vast is much more vertically integrated than Axiom and correspondingly less dependent upon contractors. Vast can manufacture all of its major structural elements in-house. If Vast gets Haven-1 up at any time during 2026 it will have gone from founding to a functioning on-orbit LEO space station in less than six years. If Axiom manages to get a free-flying PPTM+Hab1 combo up by 2027, it will have taken 11 years from founding to do so. That’s a significant difference.
I hope Axiom can stay in business long enough to succeed with their space station. These are costly for new companies, even though they are cheap relative to the ISS. The financial drain can be enormous.
_____________
David Ross asked: “Can Sierra Space resell its modules to one of the others?”
My recollection is that about a year ago Sierra Space had announced that it would sell its Life module to other space station operators. I believe that this is their intention, as long as they can stay in business that long. “That long” could be a problem. because I have not yet heard of any buyers making offers.
_____________
A. Nonymous asked: “Sure, SpaceX is in the process of making cost to orbit trivial, but wouldn’t a flatter inclination be far superior?”
It depends upon the mission or the goal. If fuel efficiency/payload maximization is the goal, then launching due east and going into an inclination equivalent to the launchpad latitude is best, so for the Russians’ contribution to ISS, that inclination was best. It is less efficient to go into a lower inclination orbit than a higher inclination orbit, so the compromise does not cost the U.S, much up-mass capability.
If a sun synchronous orbit would be preferred, then a more northern (or southern) launch site would be preferred, because those orbits tend to be somewhat retrograde (> 90°)
Geostationary and other equatorial orbits are best launched from the equator, as changing orbital inclinations, once in orbit, takes a lot of propellant (delta-v).