The impending retirement of the International Space Station (ISS) in 2030 has prompted NASA to reconsider its commitment to continuous human presence in low Earth orbit. This reassessment is raising concerns among commercial space station developers about potential setbacks to their projects. NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy recently stated the agency is evaluating the necessity of “a continuous heartbeat or a continuous capability” during the transition to commercial alternatives.
This evaluation will heavily influence the next stage of NASA's Commercial LEO Development (CLD) program, which is slated to allocate funds for ISS successors in 2026. Axiom Space's chief revenue officer, Tejpaul Bhatia, advocates for maintaining a continuous human presence in space, stating, “That’s what we’ve been building towards, and while I get the rhetoric to set the bar lower, so it’s kind of a hedge … we’re here to lead [and] we should be going for what’s right for the country, for the industry, and for the science.”
However, Vast CEO Max Haot offers a contrasting perspective. He believes a phased approach, starting with a non-permanently crewed initial module, is more practical. Haot argues that the current procurement model, heavily influenced by Congress, mandates permanent crewing from day one, a requirement he considers unrealistic. He notes that, “The current way the procurement, driven by Congress, is set up is that the minute the new replacement, the CLD commercial destination, is up, it should be permanently crewed from day one.” He suggests a more gradual approach, beginning with a module supporting three-to-six-month stays while the ISS remains operational.
If selected in 2026, Vast aims to launch Haven-2, the first module of its ISS replacement, by 2028. They also plan to launch Haven-1, a single-module station for shorter stays, in the latter half of 2025. Axiom Space intends to launch its first module in 2026, initially attaching it to the ISS before eventual detachment and independent operation.
Intuitive Machines CFO Peter McGrath, who contributed to the ISS's design at Boeing, cautions against hasty comparisons with the Space Shuttle's retirement. He highlights the resulting reliance on Soyuz, granting Russia a significant geopolitical advantage until the U.S. developed alternatives. He emphasizes the need for a balanced approach: “you need a balance,” he said, “because if you don’t put enough pressure on commercial to go get something done by a deadline, commercial will slip to the right. But if you give them a deadline and you shut down the station and they’re not there, you create the gap, and I hate to say it: Space is hard. Nobody makes it to schedule.”
McGrath warns that a gap in U.S. capabilities could benefit China, attracting international partners to their existing crewed station. Haot supports extending ISS access if an overlap with a U.S. alternative isn't guaranteed. “We don’t think the U.S. should de-orbit the ISS without seeing that overlap,” he stated, “but I think it’s too early to make that decision. Let’s [procure] to optimize for this this overlap. Let’s go for it, and then let’s have optionality that, if no one is up there, of course we should extend it.”