---
type: source
title: "Axiom Adjusts Station Module Order: Power Module First to ISS in 2027, ISS-Independence by 2028"
author: "NASASpaceFlight / Payload Space"
url: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2026/02/vast-axiom-2026-pam/
date: 2026-02-12
domain: space-development
secondary_domains: []
format: article
status: processed
priority: medium
tags: [commercial-stations, Axiom, ISS, module-sequencing, Falcon-9, Dragon]
---

## Content

Axiom Space is restructuring its space station module deployment order at NASA's request. The original plan was to attach Hab One (habitation module) first; the revised plan installs the Payload, Power, and Thermal Module (PPTM) first.

Revised timeline:
- Early 2027: PPTM launches to ISS, attaches to Node 1 or Node 2 nadir port (ISS)
- Early 2028: PPTM undocks, rendezvous with separately-launched Hab One, forms independent 2-module Axiom Station

Reason for change: NASA requested the resequencing to accommodate ISS deorbit vehicle operations and to maximize ISS science/equipment salvage before deorbit. The new port assignment avoids conflict with SpaceX's ISS deorbit vehicle docking requirements.

PPTM ships to Houston for integration in fall 2025 (already underway). Launch vehicle: Dragon/Falcon 9.

Additional context from the same period:
- Vast and Axiom both awarded new private astronaut missions (PAM) to ISS in February 2026 — operational contracts continue even as Phase 2 development is frozen.
- Axiom's $350M Series C closes February 12 — same day as PAM awards.

This means Axiom is on track to be the first commercial entity with a functioning orbital station by early 2028 (2-module, ISS-independent). This is ahead of Haven-1 (Q1 2027 launch but Dragon-dependent, not ISS-independent) and Starlab (2028, fully ISS-independent).

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** The module resequencing is a governance response — NASA's ISS deorbit planning is constraining the commercial station assembly sequence. This is a concrete example of how ISS operational decisions create downstream constraints on commercial station timelines. The good news for Axiom: they're still on track for 2028 independence; the bad news is the ISS deorbit creates timing dependencies that make the 2028 ISS retirement critical.

**What surprised me:** That NASA would restructure a commercial contract at this stage. The PPTM-first approach is a reasonable trade (power/thermal capacity before habitation is sensible engineering) but the driver is NASA operational needs, not Axiom's preference. This is government anchor customer authority still shaping commercial station architecture even in the commercial-first era.

**What I expected but didn't find:** Any specific launch date for the PPTM. "Early 2027" is vague — this could be Q1 or Q4 2027.

**KB connections:**
- [[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers which structurally advantages nimble commercial providers]] — NASA is exercising architecture authority on Axiom's commercial program even as it transitions to "buyer" role. The transition is not clean.
- [[commercial space stations are the next infrastructure bet as ISS retirement creates a void that 4 companies are racing to fill by 2030]] — Axiom's revised timeline (2028 independence) makes them the likely first-to-independence, not Haven-1

**Extraction hints:**
- "ISS deorbit operations are constraining commercial station assembly sequences, demonstrating that the government-to-commercial transition in space operations involves ongoing government architecture authority over commercial programs"
- "Axiom Station is now projected to achieve ISS-independence by early 2028 — approximately 3 years before ISS deorbit (2031) — creating a 3-year dual-operation period"

**Context:** Axiom is the only commercial station program with active ISS module launches scheduled. Their ISS-attached strategy (modules attach to ISS, then detach) is more expensive and complicated than Haven-1's standalone approach, but it provides operational heritage and ISS data continuity.

## Curator Notes
PRIMARY CONNECTION: [[governments are transitioning from space system builders to space service buyers which structurally advantages nimble commercial providers]]
WHY ARCHIVED: Concrete example of government-commercial interface complexity — NASA is exercising architecture authority even as CLD Phase 2 is frozen. Evidences that the transition from builder to buyer is not clean.
EXTRACTION HINT: The governance claim is more valuable than the timeline claim here. Extract the mechanism: NASA's ISS deorbit requirements shape commercial station architecture even in the "commercial-first" era.
