Probably the most striking thing about the new directive is that it seems to favor Vast over NASA’s original contractors…
“All the current players are going to have to do some kind of pivot, at least revisit their current configuration,” McAlister said. “Certain players are going to have to do a harder pivot.”
One industry official, speaking anonymously, put it more bluntly: “Only Haven-1 can succeed in this environment. That is our read.”
Do you guys think there’s been foul play or just a coincidence?
Vast has purposely been building hardware to try to sneak in to this conversation. They have the furthest along hardware of any of these bidders. They’re about to launch an avionics test sat. They’ve been through structural testing. They want to launch a station next year. What is everyone else doing, waiting for another study contract? This is the payoff for Vast’s upfront work and investment.
Of all of the current players, Vast have the best shot at having an operational “minimum viable space station” by the time the ISS retires. The first Axiom Station and Orbital Reef modules are NET 2027, Starlab is NET 2028 and contingent on Starship. These dates are creeping uncomfortably close to the 2030 date for ISS retirement.
Given their deep pockets and stated goals, I would expected Blue to do what Vast is doing and self fund their starter station. They’re doing that with lunar landers and self funding Mk1 Pathfinder! Maybe they’re doing the same with Reef but are just being characteristically tight lipped about it.
I’m a bit optimistic again about Axiom after they shuffled their plans to get a minimum viable station sooner by building the power module first, then Hab 1. Relying on on ISS and legacy suppliers makes any timeline for them scary, though.
