Dear Reader,
SpaceX is being contracted to destroy the International Space Station.
We covered that on Friday.
But today I want to talk about the other side of that story.
Who's building the next one?
Because the answer tells you a lot about how NASA — and the US military — sees the future of American presence in space.
The World Has Changed
When the ISS was originally built, America didn't have a true peer competitor in space.
We do now.
China has its own space station.
Its own launch capability.
Its own ambitions.
The next American space station isn't just a scientific platform.
It's a geopolitical statement.
And understanding who builds it — and how — tells you a great deal about where the money flows.
Six Companies. One Contract.
The Government Accountability Office released a report in June identifying six companies NASA is actively vetting to build the next space station.
Let me walk you through them.
Axiom Space has the first mover advantage.
NASA awarded them a contract in 2020 to attach a module to the ISS before eventually detaching it into a free-flying station.
They have more flight experience than anyone in this field.
Blue Origin — Jeff Bezos's private space company — is in the running.
So is Sierra Space, which has partnered with Blue Origin on several projects.
SpaceX is also one of the six.
Yes — the same company being contracted to destroy the ISS is competing to build its successor.
That is a genuinely unusual dual role.
Vast Space is targeting the fastest timeline of any competitor — their entire pitch is speed.
And Starlab Space has already built modules and has heavyweight backers including Airbus and Palantir.
Who's Actually Winning
Of the six, it appears the field has narrowed to three realistic contenders.
Vast has the fastest schedule — but the least experience with crewed operations.
That is a significant liability when NASA is the customer.
Starlab has serious institutional backing and real experience.
Airbus and Palantir aren't names you attach to a losing bid.
Axiom has the most flight experience of anyone in this field — but persistent reports of financial strain have been surfacing.
People appear to be walking away from them.
And the big names?
Blue Origin, Sierra Space, and SpaceX are probably not going to win the primary contract.
What they're more likely to do is act as component and technology contributors to whoever does win.
Why This Matters for Investors
Here's the business model that makes this so interesting.
NASA isn't building the next space station.
They're going to rent it.
The winning company builds it.
NASA becomes the tenant.
At as much as a billion dollars a year.
Think about that.
A billion dollars a year in essentially guaranteed government revenue — from one of the most creditworthy tenants on earth.
That is a very different business than launching satellites or selling rocket rides.
That is recurring infrastructure income.
For whoever wins this contract, it's transformational.
And for the publicly traded component makers that feed into whoever wins — there are opportunities there too.
The Part I'd Actually Put Money On
So who wins?
I'll give you the honest answer: I don't know. Nobody does yet, and anyone who tells you otherwise on a Monday morning is selling you something.
Starlab has the backing. Axiom has the flight time and a balance sheet problem. Vast has the calendar and no crewed experience.
Pick one and you've got a one-in-three shot on a contract NASA hasn't even committed to a date on.
I've been doing this thirty-five years. That is not how I like to put money to work.
So go back and read that last line I wrote you again.
The big names probably aren't winning the primary contract — they're going to end up as component and technology contributors to whoever does.
Which means there is a second way into this story, and it doesn't require you to be right about the winner at all.
All three of those stations need the same hardware. Built to the same tolerances. By the same short list of firms that have already proven they can put something in orbit and keep it working up there.
And space stations are no longer the only thing filling that order book.
The AI buildout has run out of room on the ground. Power, cooling, land — every one of those is constrained down here and effectively free up there.
NVIDIA's chief executive calls it "the next frontier for the AI infrastructure boom."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it's on track to become a trillion-dollar industry.
Musk, Bezos and NVIDIA are all moving the same direction at the same time — and they are all buying from the same place.
One company supplies that buildout.
You can be wrong about which of the six wins the NASA contract, wrong about which billionaire wins the race above it, and still be right about this.
That is the rarest setup there is — being right about the trend without having to be right about the company.
I've put the whole thing together, including the name and the ticker, in a report I'm calling "SpaceX's Hidden Supplier: The Firm Powering the Orbital AI Boom."
This is a heck of a story.
I'd get through it before November 4th, for reasons that will be obvious when you read it.
Have a wonderful day.
I'll see you tomorrow.
"The Buck Stops Here,"
Found this helpful? Share it with others.
Written by Dylan Jovine