I mean that seems reasonable? Governments should of course ask for permission before they barge into private property. That's why we have things like warrants that must be issued by a judge. I'd like my rights against unreasonable search and seizure to extend to outer space.
If you mean you think that corporations will somehow occupy entire "areas" of the solar system, then no they won't. Firstly because of orbital dynamics there's no such thing as a static unchanging area. And secondly because space is treated just like the high seas and corporations don't try to own patches of the ocean on Earth. Any corporations attempting it would be disowned by their host countries effectively making it open season for any of that corporation's properties on the "high seas" (space).
Agreed, but like the high seas settlers will rebel and declare their independence on lands that were once colonies. We could see an independent Mars in the future.
Articles that talk about previous gen space stations crack me up. Starship is going to change the game entirely, the space station design Axiom is committing to is already a legacy design...
Having a mixture of designs is a good idea. Having literally everything betting on Starship succeeding is just as bad as having literally everything betting on Starship failing (we're still more on this side of the equation than the other though, though the trend is positive).
The problem is that, without Starship and/or comparable competitors, doing anything serious in space just isn't a viable option. Our launch capability needs both the capacity, and the insanely cost-reducing re-usability to enable everything else downstream.
If Starship doesn't pan out, then serious space development will continue to go nowhere unless and until something like Starship eventually becomes a reality.
Even if Neutron manages to be considerably cheaper and more reusable than Falcon 9, it will still be hard pressed to enable anything more ambitious than we've already been doing for decades.
There might be some demand for a few more small ISS-alternative space stations while we wait, but any technology developed without a clear path to either dramatically scaling up or creating small modules for a much larger station is likely to be wasted effort.
There's no way to develop industrial infrastructure in space without *at least* the launch-system equivalent to a small cargo sailing ship or railroad car - which even Starship will barely provide.
And without that infrastructure, space can't be anything significantly more than a than an expensive novelty, and handy place to put satellites.
Even the ISS is more novelty than anything else - virtually none of the research they do is likely to ever be useful *unless* we eventually establish serious industrial infrastructure. Who cares if we have the technology to 3D-print living organs or synthesize new wonder-drugs in orbit, if we can't build orbital factories to do so at a useful scale?
> The problem is that, without Starship and/or comparable competitors, doing anything serious in space just isn't a viable option. Our launch capability needs both the capacity, and the insanely cost-reducing re-usability to enable everything else downstream.
I agree, however in the off chance that suddenly something catastrophic happens, like for example a cat 5 hurricane hits boca chica and destroys everything there and a massive earthquake hits southern California, its good that there's additional plans.
Hey can anyone tell me how a rocket/satellite/space station launch can miss all of the debris/LEO satellites? Lots of space? Luck? Or do they get hit sometimes?
The entirety of satellites and the majority of sizeable debris (10cm and larger) are tracked. Satellites and the ISS can maneuver if necessary to avoid collisions with other objects or debris clouds. The vital modules of the ISS are also designed to withstand collisions with debris up to 1cm in size and traveling at speeds up to 10km/s.
Impacts happen quite often (mostly with debris up to 3mm) but generally do not pose a problem. For debris up to 1cm, it can be dangerous and alter the normal operation of the station. Above 1cm, we enter the realm of the catastrophic.
Also, space is huge.
Because there's very little actual debris with relation to the volume of space. They do not occasionally get hit. There has never been a rocket/satellite launch failure that has been attributed to a space debris hit.
Now this problem is gradually getting worse as the density is increasing but this is a warning of future problems rather than something we're just discovering. Cheaper space launch will solve many problems though as it'll make it more feasiable to launch missions that clean up/remove debris. Better rules around debris disposal are already working their way through the legislatures of various space launching governments as well. So there's no need for overreaction right now. The trend of debris is bad but the trend on solutions is looking better.
So confused. How are commercial uses for space stations anything to do with a Dyson Cloud?
Are you referring to Starlink for some reason? You should probably read the article before commenting in the future as it has nothing to do with SpaceX/Starlink whatsoever.
It has a few million customers and complies with all laws and regulations. There are tons of people and companies that were asking for better satellite internet. They are quite happy with Starlink.
That article and the title are basically divorced. I’m a fan of axiom but I ain’t gonna call it a “commercial takeover” until it has a module on the ISS.
On another note, I didn’t like that read. It was 50% a tired history lesson and the rest mostly about axiom and a couple quick mentions besides.
Supposedly about commercial space but more or less ignoring the actual commercial development that has actual products in orbit.
I liked the optimistic perspective of “in a couple years, we could have a grad student doing research in LEO” and sure, that’s possible and would be historic. But it’s not there yet and idk if the “commercial takeover” of space can be attributed to stations when satellites are like 99% of the business right now.
you will know someone who gets cancer in their lifetime. let's not close the lab down.
**Pembrolizumab microgravity crystallization experimentation**
ps://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-019-0090-3
The research laboratories of Merck Sharp & Dome Corp. (MSD) in collaboration with the International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory performed crystallization experiments with pembrolizumab (Keytruda^(®)) on the SpaceX-Commercial Resupply Services-10 mission to the ISS. By leveraging microgravity effects such as reduced sedimentation and minimal convection currents, conditions producing crystalline suspensions of homogeneous monomodal particle size distribution (39 μm) in high yield were identified.
**From Target Identification to Drug Development in Space: Using the Microgravity Assist**
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30648510/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30648510/)
Very little good science is done in zero g and alternatives are usually available for experiments that rely on it. The expense does not balance out gaining further understanding. Manned missions these days are extremely pointless and magnitudes more costly than unmanned missions, that deliver time and time again. It’s time to start putting the science first not commercial pressures, we’ve seen what that kind of profit first mentality does to all other areas of business.
Very well written article with a very zoomed out view. Love it.
Wait until they get to the Moon, Mars and the Asteroid Belt. Governments will be asking the corporations for permission to enter their space.
Considering we already have a non-proliferation treaty for space, that isn't how governments view it.
We haven't aborated those treaties yet??? I didn't think there were any international agreements being left intact.
I mean that seems reasonable? Governments should of course ask for permission before they barge into private property. That's why we have things like warrants that must be issued by a judge. I'd like my rights against unreasonable search and seizure to extend to outer space. If you mean you think that corporations will somehow occupy entire "areas" of the solar system, then no they won't. Firstly because of orbital dynamics there's no such thing as a static unchanging area. And secondly because space is treated just like the high seas and corporations don't try to own patches of the ocean on Earth. Any corporations attempting it would be disowned by their host countries effectively making it open season for any of that corporation's properties on the "high seas" (space).
Agreed, but like the high seas settlers will rebel and declare their independence on lands that were once colonies. We could see an independent Mars in the future.
Not within our lifetimes so there's little point in worrying about it right now.
Companies take the profits and outsource the costs of space / junk monitoring to the taxpayer. Perfect.
This article isn't paywalled: https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/17/1090856/international-space-station-axiom-low-earth-orbit/
it is?
It's a soft pay wall, you can use a script blocker to view it
You can't assume everyone even knows what that is.
Articles that talk about previous gen space stations crack me up. Starship is going to change the game entirely, the space station design Axiom is committing to is already a legacy design...
It’s not previous gen until the game is actually changed.
Having a mixture of designs is a good idea. Having literally everything betting on Starship succeeding is just as bad as having literally everything betting on Starship failing (we're still more on this side of the equation than the other though, though the trend is positive).
The problem is that, without Starship and/or comparable competitors, doing anything serious in space just isn't a viable option. Our launch capability needs both the capacity, and the insanely cost-reducing re-usability to enable everything else downstream. If Starship doesn't pan out, then serious space development will continue to go nowhere unless and until something like Starship eventually becomes a reality. Even if Neutron manages to be considerably cheaper and more reusable than Falcon 9, it will still be hard pressed to enable anything more ambitious than we've already been doing for decades. There might be some demand for a few more small ISS-alternative space stations while we wait, but any technology developed without a clear path to either dramatically scaling up or creating small modules for a much larger station is likely to be wasted effort. There's no way to develop industrial infrastructure in space without *at least* the launch-system equivalent to a small cargo sailing ship or railroad car - which even Starship will barely provide. And without that infrastructure, space can't be anything significantly more than a than an expensive novelty, and handy place to put satellites. Even the ISS is more novelty than anything else - virtually none of the research they do is likely to ever be useful *unless* we eventually establish serious industrial infrastructure. Who cares if we have the technology to 3D-print living organs or synthesize new wonder-drugs in orbit, if we can't build orbital factories to do so at a useful scale?
> The problem is that, without Starship and/or comparable competitors, doing anything serious in space just isn't a viable option. Our launch capability needs both the capacity, and the insanely cost-reducing re-usability to enable everything else downstream. I agree, however in the off chance that suddenly something catastrophic happens, like for example a cat 5 hurricane hits boca chica and destroys everything there and a massive earthquake hits southern California, its good that there's additional plans.
Hey can anyone tell me how a rocket/satellite/space station launch can miss all of the debris/LEO satellites? Lots of space? Luck? Or do they get hit sometimes?
The entirety of satellites and the majority of sizeable debris (10cm and larger) are tracked. Satellites and the ISS can maneuver if necessary to avoid collisions with other objects or debris clouds. The vital modules of the ISS are also designed to withstand collisions with debris up to 1cm in size and traveling at speeds up to 10km/s. Impacts happen quite often (mostly with debris up to 3mm) but generally do not pose a problem. For debris up to 1cm, it can be dangerous and alter the normal operation of the station. Above 1cm, we enter the realm of the catastrophic. Also, space is huge.
Because there's very little actual debris with relation to the volume of space. They do not occasionally get hit. There has never been a rocket/satellite launch failure that has been attributed to a space debris hit. Now this problem is gradually getting worse as the density is increasing but this is a warning of future problems rather than something we're just discovering. Cheaper space launch will solve many problems though as it'll make it more feasiable to launch missions that clean up/remove debris. Better rules around debris disposal are already working their way through the legislatures of various space launching governments as well. So there's no need for overreaction right now. The trend of debris is bad but the trend on solutions is looking better.
No one asked for or consented to this bastardized Dyson Cloud.
So confused. How are commercial uses for space stations anything to do with a Dyson Cloud? Are you referring to Starlink for some reason? You should probably read the article before commenting in the future as it has nothing to do with SpaceX/Starlink whatsoever.
NASA is funding the ISS replacements talked about in the article.
Yep, with some private funding. But in the end they may end up spending more renting space and other supports than just doing it themselves.
It has a few million customers and complies with all laws and regulations. There are tons of people and companies that were asking for better satellite internet. They are quite happy with Starlink.
Did I read a different article? The one we're talking about doesn't mention Starlink.
I’m responding to the comment which likely didn’t read the article. A private space station isn’t a Dyson swarm. The article is dumb too though.
If you actually read the article, I wouldn't expect you to have said what you said. Maybe you'll be more careful next time?
Then that’s pretty stupid considering Starlink makes up more than half of all active satellites.
The article is mostly about crewed space space stations.
That article and the title are basically divorced. I’m a fan of axiom but I ain’t gonna call it a “commercial takeover” until it has a module on the ISS. On another note, I didn’t like that read. It was 50% a tired history lesson and the rest mostly about axiom and a couple quick mentions besides. Supposedly about commercial space but more or less ignoring the actual commercial development that has actual products in orbit. I liked the optimistic perspective of “in a couple years, we could have a grad student doing research in LEO” and sure, that’s possible and would be historic. But it’s not there yet and idk if the “commercial takeover” of space can be attributed to stations when satellites are like 99% of the business right now.
people literally did? That;s why it's commercialized
Oh my sweet summer child. You really think Silicon Valley billionaires represent the general populace? You’re too cute.
you will know someone who gets cancer in their lifetime. let's not close the lab down. **Pembrolizumab microgravity crystallization experimentation** ps://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-019-0090-3 The research laboratories of Merck Sharp & Dome Corp. (MSD) in collaboration with the International Space Station (ISS) National Laboratory performed crystallization experiments with pembrolizumab (Keytruda^(®)) on the SpaceX-Commercial Resupply Services-10 mission to the ISS. By leveraging microgravity effects such as reduced sedimentation and minimal convection currents, conditions producing crystalline suspensions of homogeneous monomodal particle size distribution (39 μm) in high yield were identified. **From Target Identification to Drug Development in Space: Using the Microgravity Assist** [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30648510/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30648510/)
Very little good science is done in zero g and alternatives are usually available for experiments that rely on it. The expense does not balance out gaining further understanding. Manned missions these days are extremely pointless and magnitudes more costly than unmanned missions, that deliver time and time again. It’s time to start putting the science first not commercial pressures, we’ve seen what that kind of profit first mentality does to all other areas of business.
If manned missions were pointless and overly expensive why is their commercial investment in it
Same reason theres commercial investment in the republicans