NASA has issued formal documents outlining the design expectations for a new generation of private space stations. These guidelines, published on the US government platform SAM.gov, lay out the core resource needs and overall technical characteristics that a successor to the International Space Station should meet. The emphasis is on creating a facility that can support sustained human presence in orbit, with clear allocations for crew activity, science, and cargo handling, while also enabling efficient collaboration between private contractors and government agencies.
A key portion of the guidance centers on the station’s resource capacity. The envisioned private habitat is expected to support between 3,000 and 4,000 working hours per year for astronauts. That workload translates to two crew members on board at any given time, though some portions of tasks may be handled by a dedicated, professional support team. The yearly scientific and operational scope anticipates conducting roughly 130 to 230 experiments, all stored within a usable volume of about 24 cubic meters. Power infrastructure is defined with a requirement of 42 kilowatts of electrical power to run internal systems and equipment, with external payloads needing another 5 to 8 kilowatts. Cargo logistics are also specified: about 5,000 kilograms of cargo should be capable of transfer to the station, with up to 2,000 kilograms designated for return to Earth. These figures establish a framework for station design, life support, and mission planning, ensuring a robust cadence of research and maintenance while maintaining flexibility for future upgrades. (Citation: NASA planning documents on SAM.gov and related summaries; attribution to the space agency’s public records.)
The second document provides a broader technical snapshot of the post-ISS station. One surprising element is the absence of an explicit airlock requirement for spacewalks. While no mandatory airlock is specified, the text notes that such a capability could be valuable for external repairs and the handling of external payloads. The absence of a gateway requirement also implies that commercial contractors must propose alternative means to place equipment and payloads outside the hull if a gateway is not included. The most plausible interpretation is the use of autonomous or remotely operated robotic arms that can retrieve cargo from visiting spacecraft and position it on the station’s exterior. The documents also contemplate a mixed crew arrangement, with both private and government personnel aboard. It is anticipated that private crew members will take on many maintenance tasks, freeing government astronauts for scientific and mission-critical operations. To prevent workload imbalance and conflicts over task ownership, the authors advocate for a partial division of technical duties between the two teams. This approach aims to optimize efficiency, reduce friction, and ensure a fair distribution of responsibilities during long-duration stays. (Citation: NASA design documents summarized for stakeholders; attribution to official records.)
For readers seeking concrete examples of how this plan translates into real-world projects, attention turns to the ongoing discussions around the Axiom private space station. Public discussions and analyses have highlighted how Axiom and similar commercial ventures may align with NASA’s guidelines, filling gaps in orbital infrastructure while expanding private-sector capabilities in low-Earth orbit. Analysts note that private platforms could complement government research by providing flexible crewed and uncrewed operations, a model that aligns with the anticipated collaboration framework described in the NASA documents. These perspectives underscore the evolving partnership between public agencies and private operators in space exploration and utilization. (Citation: socialbites.ca coverage of Axiom-related plans; attribution to the reporting outlet.)