![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/E_RE9onWYAU4Ssc-scaled.jpeg\")
<\/p>\nIt is a lesson the U.S. space program has had to learn many times over: don\u2019t voluntarily give up a space capability without having a successor ready to go or already operational.<\/p>\n
But for the ISS (International Space Station), a gap in LEO (low Earth orbit) scientific research capability will likely not occur when the iconic outpost ends its career, whenever that may be.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
And that is in large part due to Axiom, a private space organization with private funding that will begin adding modules to the ISS in 2024 \u2014 with the goal that those added modules will then be easily disconnected from the ISS at the end of its life, thus ensuring no gap in low Earth orbit space station capability for the United States.<\/p>\n
But making sure there isn\u2019t a gap in LEO station access wasn\u2019t part of the initial equation when Axiom started.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe only thing I knew how to do when I retired was to build and operate a space station,\u201d said Mike Suffredini, former NASA ISS Program Manager and current President and CEO (and co-founder) of Axiom in an interview with NASASpaceflight.<\/p>\n
\u201cAt that time, I said I was going to wait for whatever company decided to commercially build a space station. When Dr. Kam Ghaffarian and I started talking, he was very interested in the idea that commercially we could go do that. He came back the next day and said, \u2018Okay, I\u2019m in.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The planned timeline for Axiom\u2019s expansion on the ISS. (Credit: Axiom)<\/p>\n
As Suffredini noted, \u201cAt that point, NASA had really not given a whole lot of thought about how we were going to transition. In fact, we had hardly discussed it at all in 2015 except that the government had said, \u2018We\u2019re not going to build the next space station. We do need a space station, but we\u2019re not going to build the next one.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Technology News (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n \u201cWhile it was understood particularly by the folks we were dealing with that that was eventually going to be a question, we weren\u2019t worried about it quite like that. A few years later, it became really clear that we needed to seriously discuss the end of ISS.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNow, we\u2019re working very hard to make sure that gap never occurs. I think the government now is getting to the point where they\u2019re starting to think about it and worry about it. Fortunately, we\u2019re in the right place at the right time.\u201d <\/p>\n So why attach to the ISS if ensuring no gap in LEO station access wasn\u2019t the goal?<\/p>\n \u201cFor continuity,\u201d said Suffredini, \u201cthe seamless transition from ISS to a commercial platform, no \u2018hitches in the get-along.\u2019\u201d In part, this allows investors \u2014 both commercial and governmental \u2014 who have already allocated resources into the ISS to not have to throw away their technology or re-launch new units to a new space station at the end of ISS\u2019s life. <\/p>\n Some of the components inside ISS can be simply \u2014 in relative terms \u2014 moved to the Axiom modules before they are detached at the end of the station\u2019s life.<\/p>\n