NASA has not done well in preparing for any of their next phases of manned spaceflight. They thought they had the post-lunar-landings Apollo Applications Program, which was the only time they had a well thought out next phase, but Congress and President Nixon did not agree that space was a productive destination.

The story of Apollo Applications is an interesting one, and even now, I am not sure it has been told well or in depth — at least, not in one place.

David Portree has taken the position that Apollo Applications was effectively killed well before Nixon ever took office. He argues (with some good evidence) that what actually killed Apollo Applications was the Apollo 1 fire. “After the fire, NASA came under close scrutiny and was found wanting. Congress could not “punish” the agency by cutting the Apollo Program budget – to do so would have endangered achievement of President Kennedy’s geopolitical goal of a man on the moon by 1970, the goal for which the AS-204 astronauts had given their lives – but it could express its displeasure by cutting programs meant to give NASA a post-Apollo future. The agency’s FY 1968 appropriation was slashed to $4.59 billion, with AAP receiving only $122 million.”

LBJ had requested $455 million for Apollo Applications. This gutting effectively stopped almost all Apollo Applications planning in 1967. In the end, of course, NASA was able to salvage the Skylab program out of its ruins, but that was only a shell of what it was supposed to be.

https://www.wired.com/2012/08/before-the-fire/

I’m not as worried about Vast, because they are in business solely for their space stations, but Sierra Space, Blue Origin, and Boeing have their other spacecraft businesses to keep them going, so Orbital Reef has that risk.

No, even Vast needs a big NASA contract if they are going to build Haven-2. Max Haot said as much not long ago. “If we want to create this amazing future, we need to exist. To exist, we need to be profitable. So, to be profitable, we believe we need NASA as an anchor customer.”
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2025/02/vast-interview-2025/

Now, the Haven-1 station, they are paying for that out of pocket, and I gather they have some customers paid up for short stays on it. That’s their application, if you will, for the NASA competition. So they are covered on Haven-1. But Haven-2 will cost a lot more money.

The purpose of a preliminary design review (PDR) is to confirm that the basic design meets requirements while likely staying on budget and on schedule. After the PDR, detailed design begins in earnest. The majority of the manufacturing comes after the critical design review, which confirms the design remains sound and the manufacturing, integration, and test will likely stay on budget and on schedule.

This confirms to me that Starlab space station is not moving very fast, but if they are being methodical and can remain adequately funded, they should be able to launch their space station, and if they can find enough business after the other space stations have taken the early customers, then they should do well. I hope I didn’t add too many “ifs” in that last sentence. Being first is not necessarily the most important, but making it right definitely is important.

“… while it waits to see if it will win the big contract from NASA.”

Oh, geez. Does this mean that Starlab, and maybe the other space stations, could or would stop work if they are not recipients of NASA’s next level of contract? I’m not as worried about Vast, because they are in business solely for their space stations, but Sierra Space, Blue Origin, and Boeing have their other spacecraft businesses to keep them going, so Orbital Reef has that risk.

Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Northrop Grumman, and Mitsubishi (Voyager Space’s (nee Nanoracks) partners on Starlab) likewise have plenty of other business, although Voyager Space could be in deep trouble if their partners abandon them for losing the next NASA contract.

Axiom also does not seem to have a large business plan without their space station, so they may be committed with or without the next NASA contract to help fund them. I suppose they could continue to be the company that interacts between the space stations and the customers, as it does for NASA and ISS, but that is not another space station but is merely the same work they perform now.
___________________
Richard M,
I think you are right. The space station developers need to line up as much business commitments as possible. With or without NASA, they are going to need it.

I worry that there will not be sufficient commercial manned transportation to the space stations. If there are only five manned Dragons, then there is limited availability to the space stations. If Starliner comes online for commercial use (seeming unlikely, at this point — NASA really screwed them hard, last year), then there could be enough. I certainly hope that a manned Dream Chaser is developed in time to cover the gaps for the three remaining Commercial Low-Earth-Orbit Destinations (CLD) stations and Vast’s non-CLD station. Europe may develop its own manned spacecraft, and that could help. Would India use its own GaganYaan manned spacecraft (unmanned test flight later this year) for these American space station destinations? If Russia does not successfully host its own space station (the plan is to use its part of ISS as an independent station), then perhaps its Soyuz spacecraft will be available for a couple of “commercial” missions each year.

A manned Starship could do a similar job, flying to orbit to act as a platform to do the same work as a space station, but it would not be a real space station and may not do well in contributing to NASA’s desire to continue a constant manned presence in space, once ISS is retired. Starship could also take people to these space stations, but its mass would be relatively stressful on the stations.

NASA has not done well in preparing for any of their next phases of manned spaceflight. They thought they had the post-lunar-landings Apollo Applications Program, which was the only time they had a well thought out next phase, but Congress and President Nixon did not agree that space was a productive destination. Too bad that commercial space companies had been discouraged, because they could have proved the government wrong, as they are doing these days. There is a demand for commercial manned space exploration, but NASA did a poor job of preparing for it.

The company says it is now starting full development, but the list of things it plans to do in the next year look more like prep work at relatively low cost while it waits to see if it will win the big contract from NASA.

Yeah, it does kinda read that way.

Disappointing given how hard they have been working to build up European relationships and interest in the station. But I guess they think they still need a NASA contract to close the business case.

Whatever Isaacman does, I think Commercial LEO Destrinations is something that he needs to get sorted out, quickly. They can’t wait until next year on this. But the station developers need to be looking harder at lining up as much non-NASA business as possible in the meanwhile.