The next American space station may look very different because of the cuts on NASA budget – Jalopnik

The international space station revolves around our planet and is planned to be taken out of use in 2030. That will leave America without a presence in space, unless new stations can get off the ground. NASA has already funded several companies in the private sector to come up with designs for commercial space stations that would (literally) fill the void. But now an internal guideline reoriented the entire aim around the incoming meteor that is budget reductions. And that could be for a number of very, very different ideas about what a space station looks like.

The internal directive obtained by Ars Technicaexplains a number of major changes. The biggest thing is that NASA will pay for all designs that approve it via a Funded Space Act Agreement (SAA), instead of a fixed price. Via the Space Act, the agency has always had special permission from the congress to work with the private sector in a more adjustable way than the rest of the government. In this case, the document specifically states that the use of financed Saas will “give flexibility to NASA to attribute SAA value based on … availability of funds.”

Availability of funds, you say? That could certainly have nothing to do with the budget proposal of the Trump administration 2026, which requires a 24% financing reduction for NASA, including the cutting of staff by 32% and the departure of scientific financing with 47%. If NASA had continued the original idea of the fixed price for a fixed price, the agency would have to cancel the entire initiative for a lack of funds or otherwise on the hook to pay the station manufacturer that money (that it should get from other projects, which would not be insufficient yet). Non-fixed Saas, on the other hand, give it a leeway.

Acting NASA manager Sean Duffy essentially says that something like that complexes such as designing and building space stations cannot wait to see how the budget shakes. To keep the gears of the industry greased, SaaS NASA continues to spend a little money, no matter how much, and the manufacturers will simply have to come forward or (much more likely) down if necessary.

That part of the fall comes with a few consequences, and other changes that are explained in the document reflect this. Under the old process approved designs would be built in prototypes that NASA would select one or more winners. As part of that, the designs should be certified for small things such as ‘safety requirements’. The new process, on the other hand, will “shift the acceptance of formal design acceptance and certification planning … to a follow -up certification phase”. In other words, these companies do not have to worry about safety until later – now start building prototypes.

What will that certification process be? Uh … good question. “The content of the certification phase is still being developed … The specific acquisition strategy is still in consideration.” Sounds like a bit of a ‘do it now, find it out later’. The trick here is that Duffy wants an “in-space crew demonstration” from every future prototype for the certification phase. So good luck for that crew!

NASA previously had a series of criteria for the next space station that contributed to what the full operational possibilities called. Duffy is just going to abandon it, and instead the new criteria are simply that the station can hold a four -month crew at a time. In addition, NASAs Low Earth Orbit MicrsweerkekachtstrattingieThat contains the research and technological objectives of the desk in space is also waived. The new objectives … Well, are not in this document anyway.

The current international space station is a massive orbital research center, designed to accommodate seven crew members for a few months (or sometimes by accident longer). This new guideline requires something that is much smaller and less capable. That would be cheaper, so NASA can get one in a job to get a tighter budget. If the Fortuinen of NASA improves in a wonderful way, this may possibly get several cheap stations in the job, possibly about different designs.

In general, this guideline reads something of an emergency spivot. If the financing of NASA is threatened, the old plan simply cannot continue. So it is canceling or trying to do less with less by becoming flexible. The question remains how much is being sacrificed on the road.