The United States and China launch their own stations after the dismantling of the International Space Station

In a context of growing global competition, the reconfiguration of the American space plan—aligned with a vision of firm leadership such as that promoted by Donald J. Trump—exposes a central premise: space is no longer just exploration, but power. Faced with the Chinese advance, Washington seeks to avoid any strategic vacuum, even if that means abandoning old free market dogmas in favor of more direct control

.

---

As the year 2030 approaches, the international space scene is moving towards a profound transformation. The imminent withdrawal of the International Space Station (ISS) marks the end of an era of global cooperation and opens the way to a new phase characterized by direct competition between powers. Both the United States and China are already preparing to occupy that space with their own stations, in a context that many already describe as a true “space war”.

In this framework, the United States faces a key challenge: to avoid being left without a presence in low Earth orbit when the ISS is confiscated. Far from being just a technological issue, the problem has an obvious geopolitical dimension. Washington is not willing to give way to the sustained growth of China, which already operates its Tiangong station and continues to expand its capabilities

in space.

For years, NASA opted for a strategy based on the promotion of the private sector. Through the CLD (Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations) program, it funded projects such as Axiom, Starlab and Blue Reef with the objective of building a self-sufficient commercial ecosystem in orbit. The idea was that these stations could offer services to governments, companies and even tourists, thus consolidating a dynamic space market

.

However, after more than two decades of commercial activity in orbit, the results have not lived up to expectations. NASA itself recognizes that no “revolutionary products” or scalable business models have emerged. Microgravity manufacturing failed to consolidate a solid industry, and space tourism remains a limited promise. In concrete terms, the market has not demonstrated the capacity to sustain orbital infrastructure on its own

.

This relative failure not only poses an economic problem, but also a strategic one. If the United States withdraws from low orbit without a robust alternative, the risk of a vacuum in human presence is real. And that vacuum could quickly be filled by China, a scenario that in Washington is considered directly unacceptable

.

Faced with this scenario, NASA decided to rethink its approach. The new plan leaves total dependence on the private sector and proposes a hybrid model with greater state control. Instead of delegating the development of complete stations, the agency plans to build a central core under its direct control: a module with its own energy, propulsion, life support and cooling systems, designed according to NASA standards but manufactured by private companies

.

From this core, commercial modules would be attached, giving shape to a more flexible architecture but with a crucial difference: initial control would no longer be in the hands of the market. This change seeks to ensure a seamless transition after the retirement of the ISS, reusing existing infrastructure, transferring equipment and, eventually, allowing these structures to be

separated and multiplied.

The concept, described as a kind of “orbital mitosis”, is even reminiscent of the Russian model for its future ROS station.

In the long term, it could give rise to multiple stations derived from the same initial core, expanding the US presence in low orbit

.

This strategic shift completely reconfigures the space ecosystem. Some private companies, such as Axiom or Blue Origin, could adapt relatively easily to this new modular scheme.

However, other projects — such as Starlab, with strong European participation — face a more uncertain future and could require profound redesigns.

In addition, the decision was not agreed with traditional partners such as Europe, Canada or Japan, which introduces additional tensions in an area historically marked by international cooperation.

Behind all this redesign, a central issue persists: funding. Not only is NASA redefining the future of low orbit, but it is also maintaining enormous commitments such as the Artemis program, the development of a lunar base and other strategic projects. Sustaining all of these initiatives simultaneously involves significant budgetary pressure

.