Axiom Says That Their NASA-funded Space Station Is Not NASA-Funded
Hmm @DittmarML just said @Axiom_Space is the only company to develop a commercial space station without government funding. What about that $140 million NASA gave them? See https://t.co/pFygWiDNOq
Oh yes what about the Starlab station that Nanoracks announced this morning? pic.twitter.com/XzJXw3l627
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) October 21, 2021
Mary Lynne Dittmar Testimony – Hearing: International Collaboration and Competition in Space: Oversight of NASA’s Role and Programs
“Axiom is the first (and so far, the only) company to develop a new station destined for low Earth orbit (LEO) without government funds for development, launch, and operations.”
NASA Selects First Commercial Destination Module for International Space Station, NASA
“On Feb. 28, 2020, NASA awarded Axiom a firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract with a maximum potential value, inclusive of options, of $140 million over an up to seven-year ordering period consisting of a five-year base period and a two-year option. NASA has selected Axiom Space of Houston to provide at least one habitable commercial module to be attached to the International Space Station as the agency continues to open the station for commercial use.”
Keith’s note: If you read the Space Act Agreement between NASA and Axiom you will see that it states that Axiom will get the funds to actually build and launch its first module. But let’s apply a simple sanity test to all of this. NASA is giving Axiom $140 million for data and other lessons learned from this effort. If the claim that $140 million from NASA to buy data from the development of this module has nothing to do with construction, would Axiom have gone ahead and built and launched the module and docked it to the ISS without the NASA money? If there is no connection whatsoever between the $140 million and the development and launch of the Axiom module – as Axiom would have you think – then the answer should be “yes”, right? You then have to ask if investors would have even been interested in Axiom without the $140 million financial vote of confidence from NASA. Also, $140 million goes a long way to develop data and lessons learned, while serving to keep a brand-new company going before it has any actual product. Just saying.
As for the question of whether NASA should be priming the pump to spur commercial use of space – sure, why not. It is a good role for NASA and the commercial crew/cargo experiences show that there is clear value for all involved. As such there is no reason why NASA should not help with ISS and LEO operations either. But splitting hairs and claiming that no government assistance was given – when in fact it was – a massive amount – simply muddies the reality of what is going on – and how it is happening – and leaves people shaking their heads.
Haven’t you learned anything by now…do not be confusing people with the facts…keep up the good work!
The check never cleared…
Mary Lynne was a constant spinmaster for SLS when she was the spokeswoman for the deep space exploration lobby not surprised to see her continuing to present a unique warped view of reality now for Axiom.
As a lobbyist she seems to do a fine job. Does she nave a technical backgroumd?
PhD in Cognitive Science/Human Factors U. Cincinnati.
Mainly a bureaucrat & board rat.
$140 million for a functioning space station is pretty cheap. ISS cost 150 to 200 billion$ to establish; and dont forget its missing key pieces, cut to save dollars; and ISS still costs $billions to operate each year. I dont know what 140 million would buy but it sounds like a bargain.
I was thinking the same where so much discussion of millions but yet billions and billions being spent but doesn’t get the hoopla that this subject is getting.
Have we seen anything tangible yet? No? Then I’d hold off on the ‘functioning space station’ bit just yet don’t cha think?
Cheers
Neil
The website is pretty bare on images of hardware.
https://www.axiomspace.com/…
Is it more than artwork? Who is part of Axiom and what is their experience? If they are ex-US Government/ISS, then we might guess the future.
Maybe this is me but I think it’s a strange insight into the times in which we live. Once, working with NASA was a gold standard for a technology or aerospace company. Now, everyone is lining up to prove how they aren’t being publicaly funded via NASA, even if they are!
It may be less about NASA and more about these companies trying to inflate their new space, innovativeness, and independence cred. SpaceX is their reference, so I think in the eyes of their lobbyists and executive boards, these claims make them look like the “real deal”.
Blue Origin had received a small amount from NASA early on, just a couple of million but it never stopped BO from stating they had never received a dime of government money.
If Axiom can actually build, launch and operate Station Modules for hundreds of millions, maybe there is still some hope for a space station. Fact is there has not been a lot of significant and eye-opening research going on on ISS because costs have been too high and the process and schedule for getting anything on-board has been too cumbersome. If not for the government sponsorship and costs still well into the tens of billions of dollars, even after spending hundreds of billions, there would be NO space station and no hope for a new one in the future. Everyone’s best bet might be to keep NASA as far from the program as possible.
It’s splitting hairs a little. How much of SpaceX comes from NASA money? Axium’s NASA money might just be to cover the extra cost of having to deal with NASA and their fluid design preferences. Didn’t that problem cost both SpaceX and Boeing a lot of extra clams during development of the Crew Dragon and the CST-100? Didn’t Boeing almost leave the project over not being able to raise their price to cover it?
What about Bigelow?
Cheers
Neil