What Comes After The ISS? | Commercial LEO Destinations

Go to curiositystream.thld.co/APOGEE and use code APOGEE to save 25% off today, that’s only $14.99 a year. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
Want to support Apogee? Consider becoming a Patreon supporter and earn access to exclusive live-streams and patron-only discord channels - / apogeespace
Checkout the official Apogee Website for awesome merch! - www.apogeechannel.com/
Join in on the discussion on the Apogee discord server, open to all - / discord
Follow me on Twitter for updates - / apogeespace
Animations by the Talented:
Deep Space Courier - / @deepspacecourier
Tijn M - / @tijn_m
Chapters:
0:00 Intro
1:49 CLD Program Details
5:37 Axiom
8:10 Orbital Reef
13:26 Starlab
14:53 Starship Station
17:18 Comparison
19:56 Predictions
20:37 Final Thoughts

[@Tsarbomb117]

A spaceflight video that isn't "spacex good, everyone else bad!" trash. Explained each company's proposals and their drackbacks/advantages. Well-written and produced, subscribed.

[@WasatchWind]

If you want a good discord server to go along with the video, we'd love to have you!

[@42venom25]

I am a SpaceX fan and I 100% agree with this comment.

[@o-wolf]

Breath of fresh air

[@jonathanjanzen8501]

“The ISS isn’t going to last much longer-especially with Russia trying to break it every month.” 😂🤣😂

[@slaphappyduplenty2436]

I wish you would post videos more often, but if that’s what it takes to make videos of this quality, you just take that time. Yours are the space related videos I’ve rewatched the most times by far.

[@ParameterGrenze]

Ad someone who admires good visualizations: Your graphs are art! Good job on making concise, good looking visuals that are perfect for the information you are presenting.

[@Apogeespace]

Much appreciated!

[@rexmann1984]

Starlab is small but cheap enough to launch multiple ones. One for every need. Space is big and decentralization provides safety and redundancy.

[@Eclipse-mk3hm]

SpaceX looks ugly

[@upthere5826]

But alot of duplication too. Each one is going to need a basic set of systems. Both on and off planet. A larger, expandable station will be far more cost efficient.

[@rexmann1984]

@@upthere5826 mass production brings costs down.

[@upthere5826]

@@rexmann1984 That's not what I mean. It's about base line. Like how SpaceX and Rocket Lab have very different capabilities but the is a base cost to running a launch site. You also have maintenance cost and time. If you use man hours to calculate it you are looking at multiple time more the more stations you have. A medium size station housing half a dozen ppl will be far easier to keep running than 3 small ones.

[@snuffeldjuret]

@@Eclipse-mk3hm Starlab isn't SpaceX.

[@MrBurgerphone1014]

Love how Axiom is using the ISS like an orbital drydock

[@WasatchWind]

It is rather clever isn't it, reduces the risk, gives the ISS some new modules for a time, and gives Axiom some experience working with their modules before they have to function on their own. I'm really glad that NASA gave them some funding before CLDs, and that they are certainly happening. Just sad we have two more years before we can see any of it.

[@sevko_1]

Another banger from apogee! Honestly I think all are really strong options and have convincing business models. As you correctly said Starlab is definitely not ambitious but I do think its still a really strong case for its low cost and simplicity so probably rate it higher although I really want all of them to fly!

[@toddwerme121]

I think that Starlab has an advantage that you failed to consider. Because of its small size and its ability to be deployed with a single launch, Starlab can easily have multiple labs in the same orbit shell at the same time. This would allow each facility to specialize in a subset of space science investigation without any potential cross impacts with other experiments. For example, if extended periods of high-grade microgravity are needed, it can be physically segregated from human habitation studies that might introduce have unwanted periods of local accelerations due to human movements and other activities. Also having multiple Starlabs in similar orbits could allow one crew to manage multiple facilitites without needing a additional dedicated human launch. One crewed vehicle could relocate from one station to another, in much the same way that Crew Dragons is currently been repositioned from the forward docking port to the zenith port. If the Starlabs are positioned within 20-50km of each other horizontally, it should not take more than a hour or two to transition from one station to the another. Another advantage is that this would provide additional on-orbit safety for astronauts. If a serious problem occurs with one station, the crew could retreat to another station without having to deorbit. Thus allowing time to resolve problems without abandoning the Starlab completely until the next human crew could be launched.

[@_K3PLR]

Ive never thought of blue using orbital reef habitation modules as a lunar base! Thats gonna be pretty cool if it happens!

[@robertbarker2458]

If it happens that's the question?

[@kenhelmers2603]

I just spent 30 minutes reading thru the comments, something I hardly ever do. Some great stuff in here! Thanks Apogee for another cool video.

[@AimedGalaxy]

Can’t talk babe, apogee just posted

[@Mitchz95]

Excellent as always. I'm kinda rooting for Blue Origin this time; I would love to see something like Orbital Reef be a reality. But I agree Axiom seems to be the front-runner so far. God, this is an exciting time to be a space enthusiast.

[@juriteller3688]

There is no chance BO builds their core module before 2030…

[@basbekjenl]

The thing I like most about the axiom station is it doesn't rely on unproven technology, as awesome as new glenn and starship are they are not proven or even tested, I want to not have a repeat of starliner and see a doubling of the scheduel and huge costs. Getting the Axiom station going as fast as possible should be the fastest applicable option imo. Love the video

[@AnthemAnimation]

This is the most underrated space channel on KZbin

[@g.f.martianshipyards9328]

It is.

[@WasatchWind]

Someday I hope that Apogee is one of those listed among the greats like EDA and Scott Manley. I love all the space news guys, but thorough analysis like this is always so interesting and less common.

[@mortified776]

I like Axiom's concept of growing a new space station on an existing one till it is ready to "bud off" so to speak.

[@dust1209]

'The ISS isn't going to last long, especially with Russia trying to break it every month.' Harsh but true. It's always a good day when an Apogee video drops!

[@tom155tomas5]

What exactly are the Russians damaging?

[@dust1209]

@@tom155tomas5 In political terms, Russia has threatened to withdraw their modules from the station prematurely. Physically, several high profile events have occured which have threated the safety of the station directly: 1) A hole in Soyuz MS-09 caused the ISS to slowly lose air pressure in 2018 until the puncture was found and sealed. The hole was caused by a manufacturing mishap on the ground but Russia continues to assert that a NASA astronaut drilled the hole intentionally. 2) This year Russian ISS module Nauka docked with the station and began firing its thrusters without command or control. It spun the entire ISS several times before other thrusters on the station were able to stop the motion and control of Nauka could be reacquired. Incidently a similar event occured in 2008 when Russian ISS module Zvezda fired its thrusters uncontrolably. 3) In October 2021 a Russian Soyuz fired its thrusters uncontrolably and caused the station to lose attitude control again. 4) In November 2021 Russia conducted an anti-satellite missile test which targeted and destroyed a decomissioned Soviet satellite. The satellite was in a dangerously high orbit for such a test and the resulting explosion created hundreds of thousands of pieces of debris each moving at incredible speed. This cloud of debris created an immediate navigation hazard to the station and the entire ISS crew, including Russian cosmonauts, were forced to take emergency measures in the event that the station was struck and needed to be abandoned. This cloud of debris will remain a danger to the ISS and other orbital infrastructure for dozens, maybe even hundreds of years.

[@emorymeek]

Great primer for CLD! I didn't know much of this program and you brought me up to speed in 20 minutes. Thank you and keep up the great work.

[@MrGeyt2006]

man I'm glad I stumbled onto your channel last year. every video you put out has been solid, enjoyable, and accurate. you cut through a lot of the fan boy hype and get the facts out really well.

[@WasatchWind]

And I don't think that he aligns too much to any real faction of thought in the space community. Someone is going on some rant about how such and such thing some space company is doing that won't work, and he gives some really well worded thought in contrast that doesn't really paint him as a fanboy, but as someone open to thinking about a number of possibilities.

[@XanderBudnick]

Great video! Love the channel keep it up

[@Apogeespace]

Thanks so much!

[@Earthmoonstars-el6rd]

Regardless of what the new space station is going to be like ,the dream chaser most likely is going to play a major part of both space construction and safety transportation.

[@WasatchWind]

I wouldn't say construction - it's no shuttle, but for crew and cargo, yes, Dreamchaser is going to hopefully be a big player.

[@jamesowens7176]

I have to agree with your conclusion: Axiom first, Orbital Reef second. These two are the most "ISS Replacement" of the four. Axiom has a bid head start and already has gauranteed use of the ISS as a nest from which to grow. That's a BIG advanatage! Plus they have inside knowledge of how NASA evaluates bids and the advantage of being the only "space station veterans" in the mix. They are also most likely to suceed anyway if they don't get a CLD contract. Orbital Reef has the most potential of any of them, being capable of essentially endless expansion. In that aspect they are a great ISS replacement, as many countries with minimal space programs could build a module, or even lease space on a module for experiments and/or crew. It's also easy to expect that the Reel will have the best business model, precisely because of its evolvability. Sierra and/or Blue could offer customizable modules for sale for corporate or country R&D and manufacturing. Universities could lease lab racks for small experiments. Boeing could sell commercial astronaut time to operate experiments. Sierra could sell tourist flights on Dream Chaser to their luxury expandable spa modules. The possibilities are endless!

[@HeWhoWatchesVideos1]

To be fair, Reef has the "space station veteran" thing too, given that Boeing has the ISS contract. And Nanoracks has facilities on ISS. Goes to show how critical the ISS is in developing this expertise and technology

[@jamesowens7176]

@@HeWhoWatchesVideos1 Good point! Reef is more ambitious than any of the others. It's really my favorite, but it is a little more speculative than Axiom's bid, since it's relying on some hardware that has yet to fly. If Blue would just go ahead and demostrate New Glenn sometime soon, they'd certainly bring more credibility to their bids! It's good to have the backing of Boeing's Ops experience and (nearly flying) Starliner, as well as Nanoracks.

[@ameritoast5174]

I hope orbital reef is chosen. It seems the best option. As you said it's the most expandable and can allow custom habs to be made to fit the needs. Also cooperation with other nations seems like a no brainer for me. Axiom seems like the safe bet. A ISS 1.5. probably will win it because of how quickly and cheaply it can be done. I hope they do both personally but if one must be chosen they go for Orbital reef for the future potential.

[@carsongbaker]

Exceptional video! Can't imagine anyone else explaining this as well as you do

[@billorcg7779]

This channel is sooo good! Nothing else like it! I love the topic selection and the analysis is first rate.

[@Aiasmor]

Glad I found this channel! Subscribed!

[@mj6463]

Man! You uploaded a few times since I last got a recommendation. I’ll have to make this one of the channels I check whenever I open KZbin. Great work man!

[@mj6463]

I am subscribed, just can’t use notifications.

[@WasatchWind]

@@mj6463 Well if notifications aren't working right for you, you can always join the channel's discord, where you can find out about episode uploads in advance - as well as launches and other events.

[@mj6463]

@@WasatchWind oh shit, I didn’t realize there was one, I will do that. thanks!

[@WasatchWind]

@@mj6463 Yeah, it's a pretty nice active server (link is in the description, Apogee forgets to plug it in the video). The server also has nice auto updates for things like starship and stuff - and as mentioned, is a nice way to get a look at upcoming videos.

[@OndrejFindejs]

Can't wait for these new stations!

[@Aravail]

Another excellent analysis! I love how Axiom's robotic arm just grabs an ISS module to take with it at 6:53. Is that Leonardo?

[@armchairrocketscientist4934]

Thank you for putting Axiom at the forefront here. I don't like videos or articles that only mention Axiom, when it is going to be the biggest successor the ISS. It has the most experience behind it, and will be the first commercial station to operate. I see them as being one of the biggest players in LEO in the coming decades.

[@niwasox3]

Axiom looks to me like $5B Dynetics did in the preliminary HLS proposals. Technically straightforward, competent and at reasonable cost. Let's hope we don't get a bad surprise again, we've seen how misleading these initial concepts can be.

[@topsecret1837]

It’s a fair idea with good backing, leadership and excellent progress compared with the other options, while retaining a light amount of ambition.

[@punishedxl5747]

you are one of the best small creators of this kind of content

[@realnameverified416]

I remembered this channel being waaay larger.... must be foresight? Great work, keep it up!

[@continuum5104]

I love to see the Voyager rotating Station in the future and the big Gateway

[@WasatchWind]

Orbital Assembly Corp (and the gateway foundation by extension) are a bit of a wild card. They don't have much to show off at this point. A lot of people write them off as an outright scam. I am still quite skeptical of them, but I think that their more realistic near term ambitions, of testing manufacturing in space, I think could be quite possible.

[@Photostar625]

watching this 1 year and 360 days after its release. why did nobody tell me about this?

[@_K3PLR]

For starlab, could they potentially attatch more of those big inflatable hab modules?

[@TheLunacyofOurTimes]

That's what I was thinking too. Even adding a docking port module with 6 points would make it a great choice because you only need one launch to add a whole new facility.

[@debott4538]

Looks like starlab has a large inflatable module. I'm guessing those are insufficient as a structual piece. Baloons are not a very good building block. ;)

[@TheLunacyofOurTimes]

@Miguel Except they don't have a tested engine yet. They need that little detail. Oh, and a working copy of the rocket rather than just a mock up. So basically they have a lot to do and are far behind.

[@TheLunacyofOurTimes]

@@debott4538 I think the backbone of the station can easily accomodate this. If a hard-shell is launched it could have two docking ports for inflatables and two for added solar power. Maybe the inflatables could be designed to have their own single solar array at some point.

[@randomramjet782]

Another nic video. Covered the topic well. thanks.

[@StarshipFairing]

Wetlabing the Starship fuel tanks will only get you to ~2400m3

[@WasatchWind]

I'm not familiar enough with the math of it to confirm either numbers, but even without making it a wetlab, it would still be a pretty dang good station, and likely on the cheaper side as well.

[@Apogeespace]

I know to trust you on this matter! Good catch, my back of the napkin math failed me :(

[@originalmin]

Good video, but I was surprised at the lack of mention of Sierra Space’s own proposal, and the new proposal from Nexus Aurora.

[@dalel3608]

Thats because Sierra Space nixed their earlier standalone proposal (which was practically copied by LM&Voyager) when they announced their partnership in Orbital Reef. Which was a smart move, partnering with BigBnB + the stronger business case (Reef already has two full time tenants if it gets picked).

[@Apogeespace]

I wanted to keep the video short an accessible. Love the Nexus Aurora bid but sadly I don't see them having a chance for selection. The sierra bid could have a chance, but they have said themselves that they prefer Orbital Reef and are focused on that. They sadly have very little details about the station so I decided to leave it out.

[@originalmin]

@@Apogeespace fair enough, keep up the good work. I especially like your focus on human spaceflight. Exciting stuff.

[@hikodzu]

Can't wait for that

[@austin-multicellular]

blue origin finally did something right for once

[@cadenmurphy8371]

Keep this amazing content coming! Most well put together videos on this topic I’ve ever seen!

[@carldavies4776]

Not a fan of Bezos and co but orbital reef a clear game changer...I'm a bit surprised we don't see the players for LOPG providing a LEO variant... Cygnus would have resupply nailed and those pressure vessels are pretty flexible...great video

[@agustinpuente7189]

Nice:) it must be a great video as always

[@opcn18]

Is Crew Dragon's life support even applicable to long duration missions? I was under the impression that it was Lithium Hydroxide and a COPV full of O2 for air and all solid and liquid waste is just swept into a tank in the service section.

[@tresorniyogushima4879]

I love your videos Much love to you and your work👑🌟

[@VoltCruelerz]

Really excited about this. All four are actually solid options, unlike the HLS proposals. - Axiom: I think Axiom is all but guaranteed to happen. It's just too capable and too far along with too good connections to not. - Orbital Reef: would be great too, but I seriously hope the price tag is sane. I want Blue Origin to become a major player in space, but the HLS was sorely disappointing. That they've thrown in with Boeing doesn't make me optimistic, but here's hoping. Long-term, I think it's probably the best for a space economy. - Starlab: As a single launch, it's honestly so simple that it might just happen on its own. I don't know that it'll get public funding (and I honestly kinda hope it doesn't because it's not ambitious), but I hope it can find private funding. - Starship: I honestly see this as nearly inevitable because it's so little effort for SpaceX. As silly as it might be, just dropping a spare Lunar Starship in orbit and leaving it there would automatically constitute a huge station, not to mention options like wet labs or strapping two of them together for artificial gravity. I think SpaceX's biggest challenge would be demonstrating to NASA that they even need the money to make the base case happen. If they bid at all, I suspect they pitched either wet labs or spin gravity.

[@Nowhereman10]

"That they've thrown in with Boeing doesn't make me optimistic, but here's hoping." Boeing is not the primary partner on Orbital Reef, it's Sierra Space. If Boeing doesn't come though, Sierra can provide both cargo and crew with Dream Chaser. Sierra recently stated after winning $1.25 billion in seed funding stated they are working to get crew Dream Chaser up and running by 2025.

[@tomcrouchman]

Starship stations. Starship can be designed to become a space station and be way better then anything else.

[@mcarpenter2917]

Dec 2 2021 NASA awards $415m for private space stations under Commercial LEO [low Earth orbit) Development program, Blue Origin ($130 million), Nanoracks LLC ($160 million) Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. ($125.6 million) Note, Axiom already has funding and is expect to attach it's first module to ISS sometime after 2024. Regards

[@WasatchWind]

Definitely didn't expect Northrup to be there, but I'm really happy that three were chosen, and then Axiom was already on the books. Problem I fear is whether congress will fund it.

[@davidb3559]

MORE APOGEE GOODNESS

[@chriswhite3692]

If B.O's goal is millions of people in orbit/space, then ISRU needs to be their bread and butter, not just modules. You're not building O'Neill Cylinder-level stations by hauling things into space.

[@Goulmy86]

Nice video 👍 my feedback: would be nice if the costs where in your overall overview at the end.

[@dusanboricic2017]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[@PV1Church]

If we’re hypothesizing… a Starship station does a lot to meet the overall CLD goals but could also do a lot to meet the “stretch” service goals which are essentially unaddressed/poorly addressed by the bids. It is nontrivial (and maybe practically unfeasible given the failures of tethers in space to date and space environment challenges: e.g., rapid and repeated heating and cooling, UV radiation, MMOD) but teathering two Starships together nose to nose could provide Earth, Moon, or Mars gravity (a third Starship between the two end ships could still provide the benefits of the microgravity environment) and a LEO gravity tourism destination could bolster a business case. And Starship itself offers excellent and high fidelity analog Moon/Mars mission services (although you’re likely dedicating the entire ship to such a mission rather than a section) which impacts the business case. I don’t see it coming together given the above issues and Mr. Musk’s dismissal of the need for artificial gravity in general but it could be an impressive and surprisingly low cost station with gravity which is appealing in its own right.

[@BartJBols]

2 starships joined by the nose arent large enough to provide moon gravity without causing massive nausia. Rule of thumb is 50 meters between floors for moon gravity, 150 for earth.

[@espenha]

@@BartJBols A 50-150 meter cable (or some sort of rigid structure) between them would allow for artificial gravity without nausia. The Starships have the advantage of having been designed for lifting by the nose on earth, so the structural loads are managable.

[@PV1Church]

@@BartJBols I was suggesting a tethered system as Espen Hugaas Andersen elaborated on. As you both note, you would need to account for the angular and tangential velocities with an appropriately long tether for the gravity you were targeting to avoid nausea. I agree its technically possible and I’d love to see it but I was referring to the poor track record of tether missions to date and the engineering challenges SpaceX would have to overcome (e.g., maneuvering/raising the station and the associated loads on the tether, rapid and repeated heating and cooling as the tether entered sunlight and shadow every 90 minutes, prolonged exposure to UV radiation, resilience to micrometeoroids and orbital debris, and probably a thousand other issues I’m not thinking of). Would be cool though.

[@espenha]

@@PV1Church Tethers have issues as you say. But a rigid structure could almost definitely be delivered in a single launch. The Starship fairing can fit 17 meter long objects, and at that length has an around 1.8 meter radius at the nose end. If you then have 80x80 cm girders, you could fit in at least 10 x 17 meters, or 170 meters. Each segment could be quite strong, at 15 tons per segment or 880 kg per meter. I would guess you could launch two Starships, one Starship space station and one slightly modified cargo Starship. The two starships rendezvous in orbit, and are afixed to each other, using an astronaut EVA and robotic arm. At that point the cargo Starships starts deploying segments of the rigid arm and a mechanism either automatically bolts the segments together or places them end-to-end in a position where an astronaut can bolt them together. It's repeated ten times and then the astronaut returns to the space station. And then you could spin it up. The cargo ship is just used as a dumb counterweight, allowing for the space station Starship to have artificial gravity. When you need to boost the space station into a higher orbit, this could be performed by the cargo Starship. If it has a side docking port for transferring fuel, you could despin the space station, a tanker Starship is docked and propellant transferred (keeping the crew a safe 170 meters away), and then the cargo starship could start boosting the space station into a higher orbit, ether pushing the tether and space station, or pulling it. Both should work. And then you could spin up the station again.

[@Oxurus]

Here's hoping that this is where Blue Origin puts their back into! I usually really, really don't like them... but I'd be lying if I said their station wasn't cool as hell. Here's hoping it works!!

[@lewismassie]

CLD also very clearly learns from several lessons learned from CCDev and COTS. ISS is expected to retire in 9 years from the beginning of CLD, which is more than twice the time COTS and CCDev. Reserving the right to only pick one station is to avoid a HLS lawsuit style incident. Axiom seem kinda old space-y. If NASA want to be more adventurous they might get passed over. Orbital Reef has a very clever system with the core. I don't trust BO or Boeing, but Sierra I do. Depends on the market in the next decade. Starlab just seems too small to fulfil all the ISS requirements. Perhaps they're just being conservative to get ahead in the bid. A SpaceX station doesn't seem to make sense practically, but it would be cool. Orbital Reef does look like the best option, but with Boeing and Blue Origin being the heavyweights I just can't believe they'll ever get it off the ground given their history in the last decade

[@TheKSPManiac]

Amazing stuff as always!

[@Apogeespace]

Thank you!

[@wingsley]

One possibility you overlooked: what if NASA did pick two, and combined a "wet lab" Starship and Starlab? If NASA could engineer these two designs to be combined into one station, and if NASA further engineered this combined design to allow for the addition of more modules in the future, this would be much larger and better than the ISS. Really, the ideal uber post-ISS LEO habitat / industrial base would be to find a way to gradually combine all four concepts into one. Doing so, especially if it could happen with the help of ESA and Japan and India could render a new uber-ISS that could potentially house dozens of people. Using these new-generation reusable rockets means that more people could be shuttled to and from LEO, and also that cargo could be moved more efficiently between LEO and Earth.

[@dhd-rsw5844]

So the verdict is in; SpaceX and Relativity lost by a wide margin on their Rocket-As-Station ideas. It seems SpaceX ECCLS system was undersized, and the business case wasn't clear. Ironically, they were also charging "full" price this time. NASA asked why, considering what they did for HLS.

[@debott4538]

Question: Is there an inherent advantage large stations have over smaller ones? Besides the obvious (volume = comfort/crew size/etc.), aren't there also technical issues large stations need solving? (e.g. structural integrity, assembly, power & atmosphere supply, etc.) That said, isn't maybe a fleet of smaller stations more effective? I'm sure there are lots of studies from Mir, and ISS.

[@espenha]

Increasing the size has pros and cons. But generally, you want to go with as large a module as will fit into the payload fairing of the chosen launch vehicle. This is because the mass of the station is closely correlated with the surface area, and increasing the size of say a sphere means the surface area increases with r^2 while the volume increases with r^3. Basically the volume of a cylinder or sphere will increase substantially faster than the surface area, when you increase the size. The needed strength of the pressure vessel will probably increase somewhat with size, to account for dynamic loads, especially during launch, but not by a lot, as it still just needs to withstand 1 bar of pressure plus safety margins. Which means a 1000 cubic meter module might be 100 tons, while a 250 cubic meter module will not be 25 tons, but maybe more like 50 tons. Your mass efficiency drops with smaller modules. With less mass needed relative to volume for larger modules, there is less mass that needs to be bought and machined, which means raw material costs and labour costs will be lower relative to volume.

[@upthere5826]

Efficiency. With a large station you can have one life support system to accommodate dozens. It's the same for station keeping. It's a long list. Most of the time on the ISS is management and maintenance. If the ISS were 3 separate stations you are looking at 3 times the man hours being spent just keeping the clock ticking.

[@debott4538]

Thanks, guys, for your thoughtful answers. ^.^ I think the volume per mass calculation is self-explanatory. This can be seen as a huge argument against large modular stations. But also againts multiple small stations. Very large volumes per launch are probably only realistic with super-heavy rockets. On the other hand, when assuming one larger life support/power system requires the same maintenance as a small one, then multiple small ones really would be less efficient. My guess is that larger stations are indeed more advantageous. Why else would they be striven for? Even two independent modules together would create redundancy benefits for both parts, so larger constructions are most likely worth it, too.

[@Apogeespace]

Having a fleet of smaller special purpose stations isn't something I considered for this video, but it would be super useful. For me the benefit of a bigger station is more businesses and customers being able to share infrastructure, 1 cargo craft can bring stuff for all at once for example, or they can all have power from one large power module etc... Basically the Orbital Reef concept lol.

[@MrFlatage]

@@Apogeespace You need more then 'superusefull' in front of a NASA panel. FAA is even harder to get past. We should share like ISS but obviously those times are past no matter who is to 'blame'. China, Russia, USA just dont like it anymore. Could you explain NASA's own spacecraft? Space shuttle / Saturn V? All build by commercial companies ordered by NASA. US Constitution not going to allow any agency to be its own company ofcourse even if I want NASA to just have their own purpose built manufactur for their spacecraft. That could make it much easier for them. Current nuclear power modules prototypes are meant to be small. No one likes to hear 'big' when you need to get it into orbit. They do have 10Kw prototypes and building up to 30Kw. NASA might pull of nuclear reactors right above our heads? No private company is going to be allowed that in my opinion. That leaves big solar panels as far as I know practically.

[@danyelPitmon]

You forgot about the gateway foundation what their plans are for a large space station that is semigravitational

[@senurasenaratne5782]

starships pressurized volume was said to be 1000m^3, the normal starships tanks are too big considering a station variant only needs to get to orbit. additionally, a station variant won't need the large flaps, heatshield, and landing legs. this will allow it to have a significantly smaller tank? or did the video already take it into account?. if not how large would a station variant have as pressurized volume.

[@jonseilim4321]

I guess it'll be the Tiangong Station

[@wingsley]

This video is very informative and fascinating to watch! Since you brought up the idea of "spin gravity", your presentation begs the question: if Uncle Sam wants to establish an improved presence in low-Earth-orbit for industry and science, and if they also want to include a structure that allows for greater on-board quality-of-life and facilities that will emulate cis-lunar and/or interplanetary exploration, could NASA decide to combine one station concept (like the Orbital Reef) with a completely different concept, like providing a docking module on one end of the core and then combining two "Starship Station" modules on a rotation tether to allow for a large, "spin gravity" habitat that would improve the station personnel's quality of life and allow for longer crew stays in space? Do you think there is a way to make this work, or that a consortium of NASA and its industrial partner can find a safe, practical way to make it work?

[@WasatchWind]

The reason I see why artificial gravity stations have not become a thing yet is because there is no reason for someone to be in space that long - and we also feel confident currently that astronauts' time in space is not long enough for adverse effects to occur. There is plenty of work to do on the ISS - they are always swamped with stuff that needs to get done, which is part of the reason why NASA wants more than just one replacement station. It is also, along with obviously not keeping the astronauts from their families for too long, why stays on the ISS don't usually go for longer than six months. I don't see this changing much as time goes on - NASA will continue to do these six month shifts on the ISS, and as commercial astronauts go up, I don't see them taking much longer either. So, when will we see rotating habitats? I think the earliest ones will simply be proofs of concept. I believe a mission in the Gemini program has a small test of rotating via a tether that generated a very small amount of gravity. We'd probably see something a bit scaled up from that, maybe something like two starlabs tethered together. So when is there going to be a practical use? The problem is that the reason why you want to go to space is because of the unique properties there. You want to take advantage of the weightlessness to do experiments in the null G. Making a ring station adds a lot of complexity for something that is in the end not important to your purpose, adding a lot of cost. In LEO, what a ring station brings is _convenience_ . It would be convenient for a government or commercial astronaut to go to a bed they can actually lie down in and eat food normally after working on experiments all day - but it is something that they can live without for six months. Perhaps by the 2040s we will start seeing it pop up as something differentiating competing space stations. No, in the end, I see two realistic places for artificial gravity to come about, at least in the next few decades. Tourism, and interplanetary missions. If its someone's job to suck it up and deal with using a toilet in weightlessness, that's their job, it's what they signed on to do. But if a high profile tourist complains about your space toilet, that's a mark against your experience, versus a competitor with an artificial gravity station. And then of course you have missions to Mars, where artificial gravity would be heavily desired. We might be able to get away with doing early missions without it, but I expect that as we learn more, we will definitely want it. For further missions, even with faster innovations like nuclear propulsion, artificial gravity will basically be required if you want the crew to come home. I apologize for my essay of a comment, just kind of latched onto an interesting train of thought.

[@jincha5183]

Top of the crop Spacex Starship as a LEO Space Station. Other options are as a Space Debris Collector, Space Hotel, Space Business Park, Space Telescope, Fuel Depot, Fuel Transporter, Space Vehicle/Material Transporter, Earth to Earth Shuttle, Earth to Moon Shuttle, Moon Orbit Space Station, Moon Orbit to Moon Shuttle, Moon Base the possibilities are numerous. All options could be Spacex collaborations with other corporations and nations.

[@Grig9700]

Clean, concise, easy to understand and the graphics makes it easy to follow along. Awesome job as always Apogee! For you skimming the comments, be sure to like, subscribe, comment and share the vid around. We want this to reach as large an audience as possible ye? ;)

[@tomalekrx]

Another awesome video!

[@darrenwilliams6741]

Man poor Bigelow Aerospace, what the heck happened to you...

[@steveaustin2686]

They shutdown during Covid and laid everyone off. No idea if they will come back or not.

[@benni1951]

Yay!

[@thomasbakkenmoe6605]

Rejoice! There is a new video out from Apogee! :D

[@Pongant]

I like the notion of using the ISS as a shipyard for novel space stations.

[@levysrugo6861]

These are all great proposals. I'm most excited about Orbital Reef (if BO can commit and follow through this time). Starship feels like cheating 🙃. The investment SpaceX has been making is really showing its power and versatility here.

[@patrickhoward3892]

The very first step should absolutely be, to build an Earth orbit construction platform. - In orbit, we build a ship... a cylinder. Farming plenty of food, recycling plenty of water and producing plenty of oxygen. - Steer this ship, slowly, to a Luno-synchronous orbit... to support every inhabitant of a Moon-base. (The cylinder might be, 2k radii? - 1k wide?) We can have that support station in orbit of the Moon by 2050. We can have a thriving Moon colony by 2085.

[@acemax1124]

This episode was great and informative 👏👏👏

[@THUNDERSHOCKR]

You put out such high quality videos thank you

[@Apogeespace]

Glad you like them!

[@nightcat7741]

glad the algorithim made me find this video, nice work! you just got a new subber

[@Apogeespace]

Welcome aboard!

[@MARK-gp9hb]

draining a rocket of its fuel and using the empty space to live is pretty much impossible, especially in space. Its better to design the single modules and launch them one at a time, which shouldnt be a problem if launching costs have gone down.

[@jonathanjanzen8501]

It would also not make sense to lug around several raptor engines forever. Just wasted engines and extra mass for station keeping.

[@MARK-gp9hb]

@@jonathanjanzen8501 yea what happened to reusability 😂

[@khaccanhle1930]

What about the massive rotating station, Gateway? Have you looked into its feasibility yet?

[@espenha]

That space station won't happen. The people behind it seem relatively well-meaning, but they don't have the resources to make it a reality. Scott Manley has a decent video you could watch. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mIasfGOLZbV4naM

[@coreys2686]

Bigelow Aerospace is older than Axiom, and BEAM has been on station since 2016. Bigelow Aerospace built inflatable modules more than a decade ago. They would probably still be active if they had a bit more support. Bigelow also owns Hotels and Resorts, who else do you want running a station in orbit? Blue Origin has yet to show any flight hardware apart from the fairings. Blue Origin is vapourware at present. Blue Origin intends to control everything, just like Amazon. Blue Origin has the same culture as Amazon, and both are reported as being toxic, and that comes from the top. A Starship 'station' would have the option to land it back on Earth to repair or refurbish.

[@espenha]

A Starship space station probably wouldn't have the option of landing back on earth. They would likely remove the header tanks, the aerosurfaces, landing legs, heat shield and maybe 2x sea level Raptors. Basically it would probably look more like an HLS Starship rather than the current prototypes.

[@tarmaque]

@@espenha A Starship based space station would have no sea-level engines at all, nor their plumbing. They are not used during ascent, only landing. Also a permanent orbital Starship based station could have its vacuum engines removed and sent back to earth for re-use.

[@espenha]

@@tarmaque Only the sea-level Raptors gimbal, so most likely one or more sea-level Raptors will usually fire together with the vacuum Raptors. It is of course possible that SpaceX might be looking at differential thrust control from the vacuum Raptors, but we've seen nothing to suggest so yet. The renders for HLS Starship still has the sea-level Raptors, despite the vacuum Raptors having better efficiency. I know one render even shows that one sea-level Raptor has recently fired and is still glowing red as the lunar starship is landing. And without the thrust of the sea-level Raptors, the Starship is a little underpowered for getting into orbit after being released from Super Heavy. It might actually make sense to use at least one sea-level Raptor to get Starship into orbit faster, and reducing gravity losses.

[@tarmaque]

@@espenha There is no reason at all for a sea level raptor to get to orbit. It's inefficient, and there's plenty of thrust available from three vacuum raptors. Gimbaling is an interesting point, but there is no reason a vacuum raptor couldn't gymbal if they were the only engines on the spacecraft. If mounted further towards the centerline because there are no sea level raptors there should be plenty of room. They are an identical engine except for the bell. That said, differential thrust may be under consideration as well. The HLS Starship shouldn't need _any_ sea level raptors either, because it will not even be landing with the raptors. They will only be needed for trans-lunar injection and possibly for changing to a landing orbit. The actual landing will be done by what is probably going to be a completely new engine. Nobody is really sure yet. We _know_ it won't be a sea-level raptor, in spite of the renders that show it. (Those renders are probably based on early models that include them. They simply weren't deleted.) These landing engines currently are spread in a ring around the HLS at regular intervals near the nose, and won't need to gimbal, just vary thrust. They could also be used for steering while under thrust from the vacuum raptors. But the fact remains, sea-level raptors are not necessary for a Starship based space station to get to orbit in the same way that a single vacuum Merlin engine can get a Falcon 9 second stage to orbit. They would be unnecessary parasitic weight. If more thrust were needed (but isn't) you could add a fourth vacuum raptor in the center, and you could actually easily make this one a gimballing raptor since they are, as I said, identical to a sea-level raptor with a bigger bell. (Now that you mention it, that might make the most sense of all.)

[@espenha]

@@tarmaque A lot of the changes you mention are not trivial. Moving the vacuum Raptors towards the middle or adding a fourth vacuum Raptor requires a new design for the thrust puck. Gimballing the vacuum Raptors also requires modifications to the vacuum Raptors, to allow for the gimballing. Having a fourth Raptor in the middle also means you need to extend the interstage/skirt, because the vacuum Raptors are significantly longer than the sea level Raptors. That again causes compilications for the quick disconnect and launch tower. I think SpaceX will avoid making changes to the thrust puck and interstage/skirt, at least for the near term. It's just cheaper to reuse the hardware you have. Losing some specific impulse by using a sea level Raptor for control, shouldn't matter that much. You lose some tons of propellant per flight, but Starship is quite capable anyway, and it just means you would need an additional tanker flight every few months/years. Also, no, it's not "plenty" of thrust. A Starship carrying 150 tons of payload is around 1470 tons at stage separation. Three vacuum Raptors producing 250 tons each then gives a T/W of 0.51. A (notoriously underpowered) single engine centaur upper stage carrying a Starliner has around 0.31 and a Falcon 9 upper stage carrying 15 tons of payload has 0.75. A T/W of 0.51 is enough to get into orbit, but it's not plenty. Using one sea-level Raptor may allow for a more aggressive gravity turn and ultimately be more efficient. As for landing on the moon, it's expected that most of the landing is performed with the Raptors. They are much more efficient than what the landing engines are expeced to be able to do. If they are pressure-fed metholox, they might have a specific impulse of around 300. So basically, you use the Raptors until you are a few tens of meters above the surface, travelling at a few meters per second, and then you shut down the Raptors and switch to the landing engines. That way you use the most efficient and powerful engines for the heavy lifting, but avoid digging a crater which you then have to land in. I guess it will be interesting to see whether SpaceX actually goes for differential thrust control of the vacuum Raptors. It would probably be the most elegant solution, requiring very little modification of hardware between different variants of Starship.

[@maks6350]

Omg I can’t wait for artificial gravity!

[@michaelheckmann3791]

What throws me off about Orbital Reef is the render at 19:32. Particularly that flat desk with the calculator LYING on top, which clearly shows that this is just PR. Which is what blue does best.

[@sugar_ltd]

The re-entry burn.

[@calc1657]

I would argue the Starlab and Axiom efforts are indeed transformative. Their likely relative low costs mean many could be built on demand, thus greatly increasing the space station capacity by volume available for use in low earth orbit. Obviously, the Starship space station concept has the potential to blow everyone else out of the water. Unlike the other efforts, the second stage of the launch stack, the modified Starship, would also be the space station. Given Starship's projected low launch cost, the cost to construct a space station configuration should also be fairly predictable and low. Very low.

[@evil0sheep]

I feel like this kind of thing misses the point of starship. What makes starship cheap to launch is that the second stage is reusable, if you leave the second stage in orbit that makes the system not fully reusable which defeats the entire purpose. Why not just build space station modules that fit in the starship payload bay and launch them on normal starships? You get basically the same amount of usable volume per launch and you don't leave 6 raptor engines and a bunch of avionics and plumbing that you don't need in orbit every launch.

[@calc1657]

@@evil0sheepNot really. Reusability is the means to an end, which is low cost launch. The low cost of Starship means it could affordably be repurposed for a variety of tasks, some of which won't involve reuse in launch.

[@tarmaque]

@@evil0sheep Using a Starship as a space station is the definition of "reusability." It basically becomes reusable indefinitely because it stays in orbit in use. Nothing is being "thrown away." You could even theoretically remove the engines and bring them back down for reuse in another Starship. In fact, it wouldn't even need to have the sea-level landing engines at all, so it would only have the three vacuum Raptor engines in the first place. For instance, a StarLink deploying Starship could rendezvous with the space station afterwards, have the three vacuum Raptor engines stowed in its payload area, then return to earth for reuse. Efficiency. The only thing sent to orbit that wouldn't be used would be part of the fuel tanks of the station/starship. And even that could be converted to vacuum experiment space if properly designed. Or supply stowage. Lots of possibilities.

[@evil0sheep]

@@calc1657 @tarmaque the way that launch is made low cost is by launching the same vehicle multiple times, thus amortizing the cost of the vehicle over multiple launches and reducing the amortized vehicle cost per launch. If you launch it once and leave it up there you lose the thing that gives you the cost advantage in the first place. What is even the advantage of leaving the rest of the vehicle in orbit anyway? your hab volume is limited by the payload bay size either way, and if you launch dedicated space station modules that fill the starship payload bay you get basically the same hab volume per launch, you can launch on an unmodified starship, and you can reuse the second stage of the lift vehicle to launch another module. Seems vastly superior in every way to building a station out of actual starships.

[@calc1657]

@@evil0sheep Low cost will be due to reusability across the numerous planned rockets and due to the manufacturing processes. Thus, even expendable mode Falcon family rockets are cheaper than the competition.

[@alisioardiona727]

Orbital Reef will be prohibitively expensive with all those contractors. That's the old way of doing and I doubt NASA will go back to it, since now NASA wants to do so many things for a limited budget. They had to go for the cheapest lunar lander eventhoug it's a central piece of Artemis, so they won't spend much on a side project like CLD.

[@americanphilosophy2701]

I always look forward to your videos

[@ANathan123]

Honestly spacex should make a space station that can dock multiple starships at once

[@HeWhoWatchesVideos1]

On Orbital Reef - should mention that Boeing, for all its flaws, has the experience of the ISS contract. That expertise is probably a lot more important than Starliner.

[@Tarquinthetyrant]

Starlab is actually good, perhaps the best option, because it means more money goes to the artemis program (once it has started, anyway)

[@BartJBols]

1000 upvotes, NO downvotes, really good video :0

[@markschroter2640]

What if you link several starship modules together? That makes the best economic case by a significant margin. If they can make it fly.

[@acarrillo8277]

With Axiom already so far into their program they likely can keep their bid so low that they can be selected regardless. Orbital Reef is a solid concept as long as it can be launched on Starship. Starlab is such a simple and low cost option that it is likely going to be cheap to develop. SpaceX is super busy I don't think they tossed their hat in on this one. With Axiom and Starlab likely coming in at a bargain pricing it would be easy to see NASA giving all three some development money, especially considering having your own investors is key to the program.

[@jeffmorris5802]

There's the pretty huge caveat that Blue Origin needs to actually build and fly New Glenn for their station to happen. Something they're not really close to accomplishing.

[@BBBrasil]

The issue with Starship is availability. Even if things will go only partially for SpaceX, it means in a few decades we will have dozens or more end of line Starships available for wetlabs. Or I can buy its last cargo mission as a Starlab-like, hugely improving on the concept. Bonus delta-v for not-returning propellant use. Edit: a big house is about 1M USD, you can have your own huge space module on a reef for a fraction. Orbital lockdown!

[@proto_hexagon5649]

19:18 hahahaha dream it easy when you can make it. STARSHIP if want, they can put any fancy lab or POS there.

[@mcarpenter2917]

Enjoyed the video. Think Wet labing not a great idea for a station in LEO, The flaw is that it would be structurally weak and easily damaged by micro meteorites. A much more useful approach for Starship and SpaceX would be a temporary station. Launch the ship already loaded out for the experiments from the ground and land it when you're done. You'd have vastly reduced setup and operational costs while also proving out Starship ability to function long term in space for both propellant storage and life support. Add a docking port or two, a Crew Dragon as a lifeboat and it could be quickly implemented while allowing safer operations for astronauts, fast prototyping of the Starship and huge flexibility for the experiments carried out on it. Think you are correct highlighting Axiom and Starlab as the NASA picks though, just can't see NASA picking BO and Boeing considering their recent performance. Just some thoughts about an exciting time in space exploration.

[@joepgeuskens527]

Given SpaceX's rate of building Starships, I think we might even see them sell 'deprecated' starships for which they no longer have any use. Anyone could just buy and launch them with whatever experiments they wish and either dispose it or return it to earth once they're done.

[@shrodingerscat8940]

Can u make a video on India's upcoming human spaceflight mission and their space station they are planning to built in future

[@wispoffates]

Great video as always. However I think it will be Axiom and Starlab getting the funding. Axiom for all the reasons you mentions and Starlab because its a safe cheap backup. Blue Origin will sink its bid depending on New Glenn being ready. Vulcan might be late but it is much more likely to fly.

[@ameritoast5174]

Personally I hope they choose two with Axiom and Orbital reef. Axiom seems like the safe and cheaper bet. They could have that up and running probably faster than anyone else. Orbital reef looks like the best option long term to me. A station that can expand to meet more people and customizable modules that allow for the country or company to create unique modules for their needs.

[@brianturney2124]

I bet Bigelow Aerospace the first builders of the inflatable habitat is providing those to these projects.

[@luther0013]

Unfortunately Bigelow laid off all their staff during the pandemic and haven’t restarted operations.

[@redwinsh258]

You forgot a very important detail: why private stations are all of a sudden commercially viable. Which of course is thanks to the huge amount of money that Congress has assigned to NASA for commercial LEO development ($17M last two years), and has nothing to do with new commercial crew capabilities.... Oh I forgot, this year Congress showed to be even more generous, with the spectacular amount of $100M. That surely has nothing to do with them noticing that CLD was advancing fine on their own...

[@Apogeespace]

Well its a tautology, NASA is making an effort top commercialize LEO, so the money NASA spends commercializing it will go up. To put that $17M over 2 years in perspective, the ISS gets about ~$2B per year. Just like commercial cargo and commercial crew lowered the cost of bringing cargo and astronauts to the ISS, the hope is that these commercially operated stations will lift some burden off of NASA since they won't have to pay to run the entire station.

[@redwinsh258]

@@Apogeespace yes, interesting times are coming, I don't know if it is better to witness these times, or how things will look 50 years from now

[@stevenhe198911]

What happening in space now remind me of similiar "coincidence factors"during industrial revolution that beyond human control maybe,for instance: what if Britian don't have enough coal to support Watt Steam engine? And from the historical point of view, the "continuous influence factor " brought by one region's development(like Dutch Golden age ) has hidden impact which will improve nearby countries' technology development .So the intergation is important to ensure the lasting of technology. Finally, apollo program era provide huge opportunities of social mobilities for people with different backgrounds.But today it seems NASA are facing much different societies and more changelling time.I got the impression many requirements actually need new breakthrough to come out to solve issues, like classical ones :Planck's Constant or even Theory of relativity…hmm

[@njm3211]

Boeing? Really? Great content. I look forward to more.

[@R1P1J1]

Your channel is one of the world's best when we talk about space engineering and space exploration that I'd ever seen. Keep the great work! Greetings from Brazil!

[@ronsmith4927]

And the winners are...... Orbital Reef, Starlab, AND Northrop Grumman's station (Cygnus derived station). Axiom declined to bid since they already won the ISS add-on contract, and SpaceX bid a Starship station but not chosen.