Last updated 3 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The International Space Station has long served as humanity’s outpost in space. But as this engineering marvel approaches retirement, the United States is making a historic shift.
Instead of building a government-owned successor, America is turning to private companies to create the next generation of commercially owned and operated space stations.
This strategic pivot is driven by four powerful forces: the unavoidable retirement of an aging ISS, fundamental changes in national space policy, the economic promise of a bustling marketplace in low Earth orbit, and the geopolitical reality of a new space race with China.
The End of the International Space Station
The transition to commercial space stations isn’t just policy preference—it’s practical necessity driven by the physical and financial realities of the International Space Station.
An Aging Infrastructure
The ISS stands as the most expensive object ever built, costing over $150 billion. Since November 2000, it has hosted more than 270 astronauts from 22 countries, serving as a continuous human foothold in space. Its scientific legacy is immense, advancing understanding of climate change, dark matter, and long-term effects of microgravity on the human body.
Despite these successes, the ISS cannot operate indefinitely. The station now exceeds its originally intended 30-year service life, and aging signs are becoming critical.
Structural Problems
Persistent air leaks have been detected in the Russian Zvezda service module since 2019, and the issue is worsening. According to a NASA audit, these leaks now represent the “main safety risk” to astronauts.
The situation is more alarming than simple wear-and-tear. A NASA Office of Inspector General report found that based on the agency’s structural models, the cracks causing these leaks “should not have occurred.” This discrepancy suggests potential “earlier-than-projected obsolescence” for parts of the station and calls into question the reliability of models used to certify its operational extension to 2030.
Rising Costs
Operating the ISS costs approximately $3 billion per year, consuming about a third of NASA’s annual human spaceflight budget. While overall operational costs have remained stable, expenses for systems maintenance and upgrades have increased by 35% over a recent five-year period, reflecting the growing cost of keeping an aging, complex machine functional.
Growing Orbital Hazards
The low Earth orbit environment has become more hazardous. The ISS must increasingly perform avoidance maneuvers to dodge space debris, which are costly and consume valuable fuel. In March 2021, a piece of a 2.9-ton pallet of used batteries jettisoned from the ISS survived reentry and crashed through a Florida home’s roof, illustrating the risks posed by orbital debris.
The Deorbiting Plan
Given these challenges, NASA and international partners have developed a detailed retirement plan. The process will culminate in a controlled deorbit maneuver at the end of 2030, with the station expected to plunge into an uninhabited Pacific Ocean region in early 2031.
The 420-metric-ton station’s sheer scale makes this complex and unprecedented. Existing spacecraft lack the propulsion capability to safely guide the ISS out of orbit. NASA has awarded an $843 million contract to SpaceX to develop a specialized “U.S. Deorbit Vehicle” for this task.
This high cost represents a significant “exit fee” for the ISS program, creating a budgetary paradox where funds needed to safely dispose of the past compete with investments required to build the future.
A New National Strategy
The move toward commercial space stations isn’t simply a reaction to ISS retirement—it’s the culmination of a deliberate shift in U.S. space policy from government-owned to commercial-led infrastructure.
Policy Foundation
The foundation was laid in the 2020 National Space Policy, stating that a “robust, innovative, and competitive commercial space sector is the source of continued progress and sustained United States leadership” in space.
The White House has issued executive orders directing a whole-of-government effort to foster commercial space industry. These directives aim to streamline regulatory landscapes, ordering federal agencies to eliminate duplicative reviews and expedite approvals for commercial launches, reentries, and spaceport development.
NASA’s New Role
At the heart of this strategy is NASA’s Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations program, formally established in 2021. The program’s core objective shifts NASA’s role from owner-operator to customer. Instead of designing and building the next space station, NASA will purchase services—such as research time and crew accommodation—from commercially owned platforms.
The CLD program is structured in three phases:
Phase 1: NASA provides funding through Space Act Agreements to support multiple companies developing initial designs for commercial space stations.
Phase 2: The agency will use further funded agreements to support design demonstrations, including initial in-space crewed demonstrations.
Phase 3: NASA will use traditional contracts to purchase services from certified commercial providers.
The decision to use flexible Space Act Agreements in early phases, rather than rigid contracts, is a calculated high-risk strategy. Internal NASA documents reveal this approach was adopted facing a projected $4 billion budget shortfall and was approved as a “high-risk acquisition.”
Proven Model
This public-private partnership model isn’t new for NASA. The CLD program explicitly builds on the successful formula used for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, Commercial Resupply Services, and Commercial Crew programs. Those initiatives successfully fostered development of private spacecraft like SpaceX’s Dragon to ferry cargo and astronauts to the ISS, breaking government monopoly and significantly reducing transportation costs.
The Economic Vision
Beyond replacing the ISS, the U.S. strategy is driven by a powerful economic vision: creating a self-sustaining commercial marketplace in low Earth orbit.
NASA’s Cost Savings
A primary motivation for NASA is transitioning away from the fixed overhead of owning and maintaining the ISS, which costs around $3 billion annually. By becoming a customer purchasing services as needed, NASA anticipates a more cost-effective model. This financial flexibility will allow the agency to redirect substantial resources toward deep-space exploration goals, including the Artemis program to return humans to the Moon and prepare for Mars missions.
De-risking Private Investment
The government recognizes that building a space station is an immense financial undertaking, likely too risky for the private sector alone. NASA plans to act as an “anchor tenant,” guaranteeing baseline business for the first commercial stations. This guaranteed revenue stream provides market stability and confidence needed for commercial companies to secure billions in private investment required for development.
The LEO Economy Vision
The ultimate goal is to “develop a human spaceflight economy enabled by a commercial market.” This requires stimulating both supply of commercial platforms and demand from diverse customers.
In-Space Manufacturing: The unique microgravity environment offers advantages for manufacturing certain high-value products. NASA’s In-Space Production Applications program focuses on growing larger, more perfect protein crystals for pharmaceutical research; manufacturing exotic ZBLAN optical fibers superior to those made on Earth; and creating advanced materials with unique properties.
Research Platform: Commercial stations will offer permanent platforms for global scientific community to continue vital research in human physiology, biology, physics, and Earth science, building on ISS legacy.
Emerging Markets: Beyond manufacturing and research, new commercial markets are envisioned including space tourism for private astronauts, in-space media and entertainment, marketing, and orbital data centers offering unparalleled security and speed.
The success of this economic vision depends fundamentally on continued availability of low-cost, reliable space access. The dramatic 98% reduction in launch costs over recent decades, driven by reusable rockets like SpaceX’s Falcon 9, is the greatest enabler of the commercial LEO economy.
Financial Reality Check
While the vision is ambitious, the financial path is challenging. The cost to build, launch, and operate a commercial space station is astronomical. For these ventures to be profitable, they must cultivate diverse customer bases far beyond NASA. However, the non-NASA market remains largely unproven, and the long-awaited “killer app” for microgravity research has yet to emerge.
Skepticism persists about whether high-cost ventures like space tourism can generate enough revenue to be sustainable. This creates risk that stations designed to meet NASA’s rigorous and expensive requirements may be over-engineered and too costly for broader, price-sensitive commercial markets.
The Next Generation Contenders
In response to NASA’s CLD program, a new generation of aerospace companies is racing to design and build ISS successors. The leading contenders each represent different strategic approaches to capturing this nascent market.
Axiom Station: The ISS Bridge
Axiom Space pursues a unique strategy bridging the gap between ISS and the commercial future. Their plan involves first constructing modules that will attach to the ISS, beginning as early as 2027. This “Axiom Segment” will expand the station’s habitable volume for commercial activities.
Before ISS decommissioning, the Axiom modules will detach and become a free-flying, privately owned platform known as Axiom Station. This approach minimizes risk by leveraging existing ISS infrastructure and provides seamless transition for research and operations.
Axiom Station will offer wide-ranging services including missions for national and private astronauts, in-space manufacturing, and scientific research, featuring ambitious elements like a large Earth-viewing observatory and dedicated entertainment studio module.
Orbital Reef: The Business Park in Space
A consortium led by Blue Origin and Sierra Space is developing Orbital Reef, envisioned as a “mixed-use business park” in orbit. Their concept builds on open system architecture designed to serve diverse tenants, from researchers and manufacturers to space tourists.
A key technological innovation is the Large Integrated Flexible Environment (LIFE) habitat developed by Sierra Space—an inflatable module that launches compactly and expands in orbit to provide vast interior volume. The project is backed by industry giants including Boeing for science modules, Redwire Space for microgravity research support, and Amazon Web Services for cloud computing, logistics, and supply chain management.
Starlab: The Single-Launch Platform
Starlab represents a third strategy, led by U.S. company Voyager Space in transatlantic joint venture with European aerospace leader Airbus. Starlab’s defining feature is its deployment plan: the entire station, including a large 8-meter-diameter metallic habitat, is designed to launch fully assembled on a single SpaceX Starship flight.
This “no assembly required” approach aims to dramatically reduce cost, complexity, and time to become operational. Starlab is being developed as an “on-orbit science park” supported by extensive international and commercial partners, including Northrop Grumman for cargo resupply, Canadian firm MDA Space for robotics, Palantir for AI-driven operations, and Hilton Hotels for crew quarters design.
| Feature | Axiom Station | Orbital Reef | Starlab |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead Companies | Axiom Space | Blue Origin, Sierra Space | Voyager Space, Airbus |
| Key Partners | Thales Alenia Space | Boeing, Redwire Space, AWS | Northrop Grumman, Hilton, MDA, Palantir |
| Deployment | Modular; initial ISS attachment | Modular; free-flying | Single launch on Starship |
| Structure | Traditional metallic modules | Metallic core with inflatable habitats | Single large metallic module |
| Capacity | 8 crew | 10 persons | 4 crew (8 temporary) |
| Key Differentiator | Direct ISS transition path | “Mixed-use business park” concept | AI-enabled, single-launch design |
These three concepts represent fundamentally different philosophies. Axiom’s approach is most conservative, minimizing technical risk by building upon existing infrastructure. Orbital Reef takes higher technical risk betting on novel inflatable technology. Starlab takes the highest deployment risk depending on a next-generation launch vehicle still in development.
Geopolitical Stakes
The U.S. transition to commercial space stations occurs against the backdrop of geopolitical competition in space, primarily with China, adding profound urgency to the endeavor.
The Tiangong Challenge
China has achieved a major strategic goal with successful construction and continuous crewing of its Tiangong space station. Unlike the multinational ISS, Tiangong was developed independently after China was excluded from the ISS program by U.S. law.
This past policy decision, intended to isolate a competitor, inadvertently catalyzed creation of the platform that now poses direct challenge to U.S. leadership. China is actively marketing Tiangong to the international community, inviting nations to conduct experiments aboard its station and positioning it as a direct alternative to Western-led orbital infrastructure.
The Risk of a LEO Gap
The central geopolitical driver for U.S. commercial transition is the imperative to avoid a “gap” in American presence in low Earth orbit. Industry leaders and lawmakers have repeatedly warned that if ISS is decommissioned before a U.S. commercial station is operational, the United States will effectively cede leadership in this critical domain to China.
The consequences would be severe. America’s current international partners would have “no choice but to gravitate toward China” and its Tiangong station, potentially triggering global realignment of spacefaring alliances, economic interests, and technical standards.
For U.S. officials, the prospect of more Chinese astronauts in orbit than American astronauts is viewed as an unacceptable blow to national prestige and global influence. This geopolitical competition has become the most powerful argument for ensuring the CLD program receives full and sustained funding.
New International Alliances
The commercial model is changing the nature of international cooperation. While ISS was a partnership between national space agencies, the new paradigm sees U.S. companies forming their own global commercial alliances. Starlab’s joint venture brings together American, European, Japanese, and Canadian corporate partners.
This shift allows for more agile, business-driven collaborations while serving U.S. strategic goals by keeping key international players anchored within a U.S.-led commercial ecosystem.
Challenges and Risks
While the vision for a commercial future in LEO is compelling, the path forward is laden with significant financial, technical, and programmatic risks.
Financial Viability
The most significant hurdle is financial. The enormous capital investment required necessitates a robust and diverse market extending well beyond NASA contracts. NASA’s Inspector General identified “limited market demand” and “unreliable cost estimates” as major challenges facing the commercialization plan.
Without a proven “killer app” for microgravity manufacturing or steady stream of non-NASA customers, these stations risk becoming perpetually dependent on government funding, undermining their commercial identity and questioning the cost-effectiveness of the model.
Technical and Safety Hurdles
The engineering challenge of building a human-rated space station is immense. These platforms must provide complete life support, radiation protection, and crew safety in one of the most hostile environments imaginable. Recent lengthy delays and technical issues with Boeing’s Starliner capsule serve as stark reminders of space system development complexities.
NASA’s process for certifying new commercial stations for astronaut use will be exhaustive and time-consuming, creating potential bottlenecks that could delay transition.
Inspector General Concerns
The NASA Office of Inspector General warns that NASA faces “significant challenges” in executing its plan in time to meet its 2028 goal for having a commercial station operational, necessary to ensure two-year overlap before ISS retires in 2030.
The report highlights that critical research needed for future Moon and Mars missions will not be complete by 2030, making seamless transition to a successor platform essential. The OIG delivers a stark conclusion: failure to establish a commercial destination in time would jeopardize deep-space exploration and likely cause the “nascent low Earth orbit commercial space economy” to “collapse.”
The Gap Risk
All these challenges—financial uncertainty, technical complexity, budgetary shortfalls, and geopolitical pressure—converge on one critical point: the very real risk of a gap in America’s ability to operate in low Earth orbit.
Such a gap would mean halting critical scientific research, undermining the Artemis program, damaging international partnerships, and ceding the strategic high ground of LEO to competitors. The success of commercial transition is therefore not just an opportunity for economic growth and scientific discovery—it’s a crucial test of U.S. space policy and a determinant of America’s leadership in space for decades to come.
Looking Ahead
The transition from the government-owned International Space Station to commercially operated platforms represents one of the most significant shifts in space policy since the Apollo program. Success would establish the United States as the leader of a thriving orbital economy while maintaining American presence in low Earth orbit during an era of great power competition.
Failure could mean ceding space leadership to China while hampering scientific research and deep space exploration goals. The stakes are high, the timeline is tight, and the outcome will shape the future of human activity in space for generations to come.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
