Illustration of Haven-2 Full Configuration; Credit: Vast
On October 14th, the American company VAST announced its plans for the construction of a space station following Haven-1. The latter is the first prototype—a test of a small habitable station that is already under construction.
We met with VAST CEO Max Haot to discuss, in a long and interesting interview, the company’s plans, VAST’s technology, and the details of this new space station.
Puoi leggere la versione in Italiano qui.
VAST was founded by our founder and sole investor, Jed McCaleb. I am the CEO, and in fact, I joined VAST through an acquisition in February of last year.
Jed created the company about three and a half years ago. His motivation in creating VAST is that he always felt that when he achieved success and had the resources, he wanted to create a space company and contribute to a future where humanity lives in space. When he started VAST, he analyzed the market and concluded that for the technology involving capsules and rockets, we could rely on and collaborate with SpaceX, who are solving that problem. He wanted his company to focus on the next big challenge, which in our opinion is habitation in space, space stations, and space habitats. That’s how VAST was born.
He quickly assembled an incredible team of engineers who had worked 10–15 years on SpaceX’s Dragon program. With that, they moved on to the next step: if we want people to live and work in space long-term, we need to solve the problem of artificial gravity. Currently, if you go to space, you can be a professional astronaut in top physical condition. You train every day on the International Space Station, but when you return after six months or a year, it still takes a month to recover.
We know that in zero gravity, we can live at most a year or a little more, and it’s very difficult. But perhaps lunar gravity or Martian gravity—a sixth or a third of Earth’s gravity—is enough to comfortably live a full life. The only way to find out is to have space stations with artificial gravity to test it.
This is the long-term vision. But if we look at the other side, the arrival of Starship will allow us to build much larger and more capable space stations at a lower cost. This is another big reason why we are now preparing for this future.
But we are also realistic from a business standpoint. The vision I’ve described—to build the first rotating space station with artificial gravity—we think will take 10 to 20 years and certainly more money than we have now. So what we need to do is be a sustainable company. We need intermediate steps to get there.
In this decade, we decided at the beginning of last year that our main goal is to win the biggest opportunity in the space station market in the world: the opportunity to replace the International Space Station and be selected by NASA so that it becomes our main customer.
To do this, we decided on this plan last year: we’re late because there are already three companies that have won the first phase of a contract—not to build a space station, but to study and prepare it. NASA has to make the selection in mid-2026.
So what can we do? We’re late. What can we do to win? And this is where Haven-1 comes into play. We launch it and send a crew of four people on a Dragon, who stay two weeks and return home safely, and we do all this with our own funds from our founder Jed before mid-2026 when NASA has to make the decision. We know that none of our competitors will manage to do this. None of them have this timeline.
We believe it will be an easy choice because we will be the only ones who have actually built and operated a space station. The long-term strategy was decided three years ago. This strategy was decided at the beginning of last year. Since then, we’ve grown, and we’re planning to launch Haven-1 in the second half of next year.
Since you’ve talked about the business of space stations, I have a question about this. Why do you believe that this business of space stations in Earth orbit will be important in the coming years? You partially answered in the introduction, but is there really a need to remain permanently in Earth orbit? Or, after 25 years of the International Space Station, can we think of something different?
We firmly believe that humans should explore the stars and be in space. Space stations in low Earth orbit are very important to continue practicing the ability to go to space, maintain the vehicles that can bring humans to space, and do it at the lowest possible cost.
A trip to a space station on the Moon or elsewhere is much more expensive and risky than a trip to low Earth orbit. So what should happen is that we should go to low Earth orbit as often as possible to test and develop Dragon, test and develop the next vehicle, which could be Starship, and ensure we complete the development of Boeing’s Starliner. We need nearby destinations for this, and we hope that the long-term goal is to explore beyond.
What you’re looking at is the first module of Haven-2. You can see it will have Starlink laser connectivity, just like on Haven-1.
Fundamentally, the first difference compared to Haven-1 is that it will be certified by NASA, right? So NASA is the main customer. Second difference: it will have two docking ports. Third difference: it will be five meters longer, roughly doubling the usable volume. This will allow us to have more consumables for life support and more space. The reason we can make it longer and heavier is that we will launch this module on a Falcon Heavy with SpaceX’s new extended fairing, which they have already developed and shown.
We also believe it’s necessary to have a functioning space station, and we’ll start with a fully operational module. It will also have excellent internet connectivity, as we have on Haven-1. It will have similar interiors but larger, derived from our experiences with Haven-1. We will continue to build: in 2028, the first module is there; then between 2029 and 2030, we build three more identical modules that we dock together. Each module has the same platform; obviously, the scientific facilities and internal payloads are different, but all have the same propulsion, life support, and docking capability. Every time we add a module, we have more life support consumables, more space, and more facilities.
In 2030, we will launch the core module, which is new technology for us, with a diameter of 7 meters. It will have key features like an airlock for extravehicular activities, a docking port, and a robotic arm. The four original modules are reconfigured around it so we can add four more modules in 2031 and 2032. Our goal with these four modules is that two will be specialized: one will have a new 3.8-meter cupola, for example (the current one on the space station is about 1.5 meters in diameter, so this is much larger), and another will be similar to the Kibo module with external payloads and an airlock.
Our goal is that some of the last four modules can be developed with international partners. In this representation, they’re all VAST modules, but we’re designing them so that eventually four can be from interested international partners. This is Haven-2. But the key is that Haven-2 starts with a first module, which is based on Haven-1 and will allow America and its partners to have a space station before the ISS is retired in 2028.
So, Haven-1 is in microgravity; it doesn’t have artificial gravity. That said, we will conduct an experiment at the end of its operational life. Haven-1 will be in orbit for three years: 2026, 2027, and 2028. At the end, we will spin it to generate lunar gravity on the payload section, but without a crew. This is part of our goal as a company to continue promoting artificial gravity.
Haven-2 is designed for NASA as the main customer, and we have no plans for any artificial gravity. Nothing, because NASA’s requirements and those of its partners are for a microgravity research laboratory.
In the long term, we want to implement artificial gravity, and we have an architecture to assemble seven Starship-sized modules and connect them into a 105-meter-long structure with a diameter of 7 meters, like a giant pen in space, and then rotate it on itself. This will create 1G at both ends, microgravity in the center, and different levels of gravity between these points.
The reason is that we think it’s an important problem to solve. Humanity will be much more active in space if we knew the minimum amount of gravity necessary for a human being to live 100 or 80 years in space. We don’t know the answer at the moment, and we think that pursuing this goal is very important for humanity.
Haven-1 will have the inclination of the ISS and will be just a bit above 425 km. We’re not exactly above it; we’ll be at a different point on Earth at that time. This was mainly driven by the fact that Dragon has all these already developed abort modes, and SpaceX wanted to continue using them for Haven-1.
For Haven-2, we believe that NASA really has to tell us what it prefers. It’s not clear if they want a lower altitude. The advantage of a lower altitude is that you can send more mass at a lower cost. The disadvantage is that you see different countries; you might not see America, for example, or some European countries.
Historically, the current orbit of the ISS was also created to work with Baikonur and Russia, which is no longer a requirement at the moment. So we’ll see what they choose. We have an opinion, but we want our customers—our main customer is NASA for Haven-2—to tell us what they prefer.
Haven-1 was designed to be, as they say in software, a minimum viable product. It was created with two key compromises. One is that it’s designed only for three years in orbit, so it’s like a disposable space station. It’s much easier for engineers to design the power system and so on if you think of three years, not 10 or 20 years.
The second part is that it uses an open-loop life support system, which means it relies on consumables like CO₂ cartridges and water, and we don’t recycle anything, similar to how Dragon works.
This actually limits us to 40 days of crew time during the three years. So we plan to have four 10-day missions—two weeks in total with transit—during the three-year mission. This compromise is why we can do it quickly. If we can realize Haven-1, it’s relatively simple to upgrade all these things and improve them on Haven-2.
But as a result, we decided we don’t need a supply port because fundamentally we don’t aim to resupply it.
So there is no plan to bring cargo to Haven-1. A bit of cargo can be carried in the Crew Dragon, but it’s not enough to significantly add more days in orbit.
Oh, yes, of course. We are currently building a headquarters with our Mission Control Center, fully integrated with SpaceX. You know, VAST now has 600 employees. We’re adding 10 people every week. So we’re growing very rapidly.
One of the people we added about four or five months ago is Derek Hassmann, our VP of Mission Operations. He was a flight director at NASA for decades, was also at Axiom for missions to the ISS, and now he’s our mission director.
Well, there are two fundamental key decisions. One is how to launch the module, and then how to launch the crew. And then the long-term vision of VAST—the long-term strategy.
To launch the module, the best rocket in the world—the most reliable, the cheapest, and the most available—is the Falcon 9. So if you’re a commercial company and you purchase anything else that isn’t the Falcon 9, it doesn’t make much sense. That’s how you end up with SpaceX.
To send the crew, at the moment, the only way—as an American company—to send crew to our space station is with SpaceX Dragon. You know, Boeing is not certified. And obviously, we cannot and should not work with the other two countries that have that capability at the moment, which are Russia and China. So this brings us back to SpaceX.
Even if Boeing’s offer were available, we know it’s at least twice as expensive. And we know it’s much slower. With SpaceX, we can sign a contract in a week and fly in less than a year. Since we’re commercial, we want the best price. Even if the others were available, I don’t think we would choose them.
The third part is that VAST has decided that the size of Starship and the cost of launch are among the main reasons why the space station business can be profitable. And there’s no other project like Starship in the world.
So at the core of VAST is the strategy that we bet on and depend on SpaceX, and we’re okay with that. We’re trying to be as close as possible as partners, as much as they’ll allow us. This is our strategy—our long-term strategy.
Absolutely yes. You know, there are questions about timing, but what’s changed is that thanks to Starlink, Starship is fully funded. So I don’t think there are any more big questions; it’s just a matter of when. If you look at Starship today and its ability to send payloads like a space station module, we’re very close to this—it could be within a year.
Starship and its ability to send people will happen later, but it’s also something we want to happen because it will reduce the cost of going to a space station. At the moment, the biggest cost of a trip or mission to a space station is transportation—that is, the Dragon. So if we want the market to grow, we need to reduce the price of the trip. And again, Starship will be the most exciting and promising program in the world to reduce the cost of crew in space.