NASA Selects Blue Origin, Nanoracks and Northrop Grumman to Develop Commercial Destinations in Space
WASHINGTON (NASA PR) — NASA has signed agreements with three U.S. companies to develop designs of space stations and other commercial destinations in space. The agreements are part of the agency’s efforts to enable a robust, American-led commercial economy in low-Earth orbit.
The total estimated award amount for all three funded Space Act Agreements is $415.6 million. The companies that received awards are:
- Blue Origin of Kent, Washington, for $130 million
- Nanoracks LLC, of Houston for $160 million
- Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation of Dulles, Virginia, for $125.6 million
NASA seeks to maintain an uninterrupted U.S. presence in low-Earth orbit by transitioning from the International Space Station to other platforms. These awards will stimulate U.S. private sector development of commercial, independent space stations that will be available to both government and private-sector customers.
“Building on our successful initiatives to partner with private industry to deliver cargo, and now our NASA astronauts, to the International Space Station, NASA is once again leading the way to commercialize space activities,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. “With commercial companies now providing transportation to low-Earth orbit in place, we are partnering with U.S. companies to develop the space destinations where people can visit, live, and work, enabling NASA to continue forging a path in space for the benefit of humanity while fostering commercial activity in space.”
The awards are the first in a two-phase approach to ensure a seamless transition of activity from the International Space Station to commercial destinations. During this first phase, private industry, in coordination with NASA, will formulate and design commercial low-Earth orbit destination capabilities suitable for potential government and private sector needs. The first phase is expected to continue through 2025.
Blue Origin and Sierra Space have partnered to develop Orbital Reef, a commercially owned and operated space station to be built in low-Earth orbit, which will start operating in the second half of this decade. Orbital Reef teammates include Boeing, Redwire Space, Genesis Engineering, and Arizona State University. Orbital Reef’s human-centered space architecture is designed to be a “mixed-use space business park” that provides essential infrastructure needed to support all types of human spaceflight activity in low-Earth orbit and can be scaled to serve new markets.
The station’s shared infrastructure will support the proprietary needs of diverse U.S. and international users, tenants, and visitors, including those representing research, industry, government, and the commercial sector. Features such as reusable space transportation and advanced automation can minimize cost and complexity to enable the widest range of users. Accommodations, vehicle docking ports, and utilities can all be scaled with growth in market demand.
Nanoracks’ commercial low-Earth orbit destination, in collaboration with Voyager Space and Lockheed Martin, is called “Starlab.” Starlab is targeted for launch in 2027 on a single flight as a continuously crewed, commercial space station dedicated to conducting advanced research, fostering commercial industrial activity, and ensuring continued U.S. presence and leadership in low-Earth orbit. Starlab is designed for four astronauts and will have power, volume, and a payload capability equivalent to the International Space Station.
Starlab will host the George Washington Carver Science Park featuring four main operational departments – a biology lab, plant habitation lab, physical science and materials research lab, and an open workbench area – to meet the needs of researchers and commercial customers for commercial space activities. The station will be built with flexible growth in mind, featuring interfaces both internal and external to the spacecraft to allow Nanoracks to expand the architecture as new demand sources are identified, and new markets emerge.
Northrop Grumman’s design for a modular, commercial destination in low-Earth orbit is built on decades of experience supporting NASA, defense, and commercial programs. The design leverages flight-proven elements, such as the Cygnus spacecraft that provides cargo delivery to the International Space Station, to provide a base module for extended capabilities including science, tourism, industrial experimentation, and the building of infrastructure beyond initial design.
Multiple docking ports will allow future expansion to support crew analog habitats, laboratories, crew airlocks, and facilities capable of artificial gravity, in support of multiple customers. This Space Act Agreement will enable Northrop Grumman to provide a detailed commercialization, operations, and capabilities plan, as well as space station requirements, mission success criteria, risk assessments, key technical and market analysis requirements, and preliminary design activities. Northrop Grumman’s team includes Dynetics, with other partners to be announced.
For the second phase of NASA’s approach to a transition toward commercial low-Earth orbit destinations, the agency intends to certify for NASA crew member use commercial low-Earth orbit destinations from these and potential other entrants, and ultimately, purchase services from destination providers for crew to use when available. This strategy will provide services the government needs at a lower cost, enabling NASA to focus on its Artemis missions to the Moon and on to Mars while continuing to use low-Earth orbit as a training and proving ground.
NASA estimates the agency’s future needs in low-Earth orbit will require continuous accommodations and training for at least two crew members, as well as the ability to support a national orbiting laboratory and the performance of approximately 200 investigations annually to support human research, technology demonstrations, biological and physical science.
Developing commercial destinations in low-Earth orbit is part of NASA’s broader efforts to build a robust low-Earth orbit economy, including supporting commercial activity and enabling the first private astronaut mission to the space station. In addition to these new awards NASA selected Axiom Space in January 2020 to design and develop commercial modules to attach to the station. NASA and Axiom recently completed the preliminary design review of two modules as well as the critical design review of the module’s primary structure.
By transitioning to a model where commercial industry owns and operates the assets in low-Earth orbit and where NASA is one of many customers, the agency can save on costs to live and work in low-Earth orbit and focus on pushing innovation and exploration of the Moon and Mars through NASA’s Artemis missions.
Find more information about NASA’s efforts to bolster a low-Earth orbit economy at:
30 responses to “NASA Selects Blue Origin, Nanoracks and Northrop Grumman to Develop Commercial Destinations in Space”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
good choices.
another subject with both the raptor announcement and the RocketLabs one. SpaceX fan boys melting down. I guess this wont help
Who’s melting down?
The Raptor deal is about production cost and rejection rate vs the Starlink Gen 2 deployment schedule needing a high production rate until reuse is perfected. Someone wasn’t being straight with the boss and caught hell. Starship for NASA and initial commercial uses shouldn’t be impacted; fewer engines needed.
The Rocket Lab announcement isn’t meltdown worthy either. It’s a great concept for a medium RLV, but hardly competition for Starship or F9 and they won’t fly for at least another year.
The Raptor deal is about production cost and rejection rate vs the Starlink Gen 2 deployment schedule needing a high production rate until reuse is perfected. Someone wasn’t being straight with the boss and caught hell
…..”
that is part of the breakdown. its the spin “wow Elon had one put over on him” sure. Elon is the smartest guy in the world but these folks put one over on him and Shotwell. Sorry I dont buy it
its more then about production. Musk has told the FAA he is going to fly 5 or 6 times out of BC but now it is one every two weeks…
and oh btw well we have to make a new engine before (insert goal here) works
in the meantime they are changing Raptors at BC like I change underwear…and I doubt that they have a full load down there that they are comfortable with
the reality is that the Raptor probably doesnt work particularly at the higher thrust levels…what “doesnt work” means is open to discussion. Not reusable, or just plain doesnt work…
its hard to know but something is rotten in engine development
see how it goes with Rocketlabs. they at least are developing a vehicle driven by economics.
Folks forget about Phobos and Deimos, the two oil rigs being converted to launch platforms. Once in they Gulf the should be able to sustain a good flight rate for an operational satellite launcher version.
Also folks forget that the launches from Boca Chica have to go straight east to miss South Padre Island and Mexican airspace so the high inclination launches needed for deploying Starlink 2.0 are not possible. However launch platforms out in the Gulf of Mexico would be able to launch into the orbits needed for Starlink 2.0 deployment.
https://spaceexplored.com/w…
the key word there is “operational” Musk and the fan boys are acting like “wow this thing works already” and “cost less to fly then Roberts 777” none of which are true …they might become that but almost none of the technology is proven.
People forget Musk “flight test” efforts with this vehicle. on the entirety of it they were a lot of failures, very near failures and almost no clear cut success
Yes. And by the time Starlink 2 is in mass production, Phobos and Deimos will be ready to do just that. That will be 2023. But there is a lot of testing that needs to be done in 2022 to get to that point. Hawthorne needs to up its Raptor production game from now until the Raptor factory at McGregor comes on-line in order to get that testing done without imposing unreasonable delays between test launches if prototypes are lost.
Elon has hired managers for projects who failed to produce before and turfed them out as part of fixing the problem. Starlink is kind of the paradigmatic example. The Raptor problem is production, not development.
not a very good manager heh
I think its more then production.
I still think tht they make starship work. I have a feeling that this is not the version that does it
the problem here is going to be the transistion from ISS to something else. its almost impossible
it is likely that Axiom will get its module up …at least one of them maybe two or maybe the entire thing. then we will see. my guess is that in the end they wont make enough money on “guest” of any sort to pay the bills..
then what? At some point the government (US) will have to strike some sort of deal with Axiom to spend money to keep their show viable.Negotiating that will be a charm
it really is hard to see how any of these stations are financially viable. the financial numbers are what I would like to see
Axiom’s first 2 modules are now being built by Thales Alenia, so “maybe two” may be pessimistic. They also have 4 Crew Dragon missions contracted with SpaceX. Well funded and already getting NASA funding, odds are they’ll complete.
it would surprise me if they did not. if they dont get to orbit then the transition is a tad easier but still quite difficult for a variety of reasons all political.
If they get to orbit however it will likely get harder. Axiom is made up of very savy people and they know how this works and what the mistakes were when Boeing and Lockmart tried to privatize the shuttle. What I thik Axioms real goal is to take over running the space station…I hope they suceed
but I find it hard to believe that they will find enough private money to keep the lights on
Yes, and keep all of the systems working…
its hard to see that economy now
Especially given the liability they would have if anything fails and it crashes to Earth.
yeah I guess I am just worried that it never gets off the ground. none of these companies are that interested (well really no one is) in exploring microgravity potential. why would they be? its all cash out and little cash in. they are all interested in providing services for people who want to spend cash but…there are not a lot of those
we have gone 60 plus years and there is no real reason for humans in space…thats a problem
differ with you. The problem has been economics.
SpaceX has made it cheap to access. Now, private business needs to make staying there cheap.
are you fairly certain that if it were self contained SpaceX F9 operation is self sustaining?
I am certain that nothing right now on a space station in LEO is…it might change but right now I dont think that there is anytghing making money in LEO that contains humans
That’s because none of the prior or current space stations have been designed with any thought of making money.
This part is trivial.
Once NASA has vetted a design, and then spun off to private space station, NASA simply says that to go to the moon via artemis, or on one of the other private launch systems (which elon, bezo, etc needs to back this), that astronauts MUST spend a minimum of 1 month in LEO on 1 of the western space stations (including ISS).
NASA has no authority to do any such thing. And it would be pointless to try. There are far cheaper ways to filter for “freak-outs.” Sending new recruits up on Mr. Bezos’s flying penis would be one such way.
LOL. It is amazing how many ppl rip on bezo for that. …
I think that sending ppl to the moon, requires that they have real training in LEO before going. No doubt the original ppl going will be hardened astronauts from the ISS program, but then private space will need multiple others to do trips to the moon. Even musk said that he needs at least 1 launch every 2 weeks (I was guessing every week) to make Starship profitable.
Now, as to NASA having authority, I assume that you mean about either vetting a habitat design or more likely pushing LEO training being required before the moon.
First as to the habitat design, having NASA put a person on a space station means that they have vetted it. There is NO WAY that they will put an astronaut on any private service without their vetting it. And I can not imagine to many westerners/other nations wanting to go on private service without NASA vetting it.
Secondly, as to the LEO training, if the base is Artemis, then good luck being a private person getting there without training. NASA owns that, and will have a MAJOR say in who goes there. And more importantly, I think that NASA will not have to push private service (assuming SX and BO) to follow that. They will do it gladly. Why? Because they need the launches with F9 and New Shepard. Oddly, both are about to suffer kind of a off-beat osbourne effect.
Axiom’s real goal is to put up their station and run it for decades after the ISS goes away. Taking over an expensive and crumbling white elephant plays no part at all in their plans. Your silly surmise about a secret agenda reminds me a bit of a joke the CFO of a money-losing non-profit organization I was involved with ages ago used to make about someone perhaps “absconding with our debt.”
NASA is supposed to be an anchor tenant for Axiom’s station, so yes, a significant share of Axiom’s space station income will be derived from renting time to the U.S. government.
That has been NASA’s stated goal for LEO though, NASA wants to become a customer renting space station time rather than be the space station owner.
The other part of NASA’s goal is to encourage commercial use of private space stations so the U.S. government isn’t the only customer, and this is the part as you point out remains uncertain whether it will happen or not. Agree this will be pivotal– Hope private enterprise can find ways to utilize microgravity to manufacture profitable goods that otherwise cannot be made in normal gravity. This is crucial for developing a sustainable human spaceflight economy.
agree with everything you said. I hope there is a low earth orbit space economy as well…its essential
I have been saying this for a long time.
the smart move is to have private companies put a module on the ISS, and then have NASA test it and vet it, and once that design is NASA vetted, spin it off.
In order to get other nations and private companies, and rich ppl to visit private space stations, it really needs NASA’s vetting.
In fact, once a unit is vetted and spun off to create a private space station, I would love to see NASA (i.e. CONgress) put 1-2 ppl on it for at least a year, if not several years.
In addition, for anybody to go to the moon via western launch systems, we really need the astronauts to spend at a month, if not longer, in LEO and be sure that they will NOT freak out in space.
Given that all the groups making these proposals know, going in, that they’ll have to come up with at least 60% of the total cost of their brainchildren, these new stations won’t be built or deployed the way ISS was. Axiom, for example, is paying Thales Alenia about 100 million Euros apiece to build their hab modules. Interior fitments will be in addition to that and so will the power tower module and deployment launches, but it looks as though the whole thing may cost Axiom between a billion and two billion bucks.
Someone pointed out on Twitter that Northrop Grumman’s render of their LEO space station has a SpaceX Crew Dragon docked to it. 😀
It is interesting that the Starlink launches are so routine no one notices anymore, even when it involves the 9th flight of a Falcon 9 booster as it did tonight. So a Dragon docked to it just reflects reality that it will be serving the facility.
exactly.