Request for Information on Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations

1. OVERVIEW NASA is seeking information from commercial providers and industry to help shape the future acquisition strategy for Commercial LEO Destinations to maintain America’s presence in LEO. This RFI is aligned with the Executive Order “Ensuring American Space Superiority” (December 2025), which directs the United States to: Grow a vibrant commercial space economy through the power of American free enterprise by spurring private sector initiative and a commercial pathway to replace the International Space Station Building a replacement for the ISS is a national imperative to maintain an orbital laboratory and proving ground in LEO. When the International Space Station reaches its planned end-of-life, NASA will transition to commercially provided space stations. NASA is evaluating two options for this transition: a direct to commercial station option and an incrementally phased transition. The direct to commercial station approach is aligned with NASA’s original plan which relied on NASA being one of many providers with 2 space stations offering commercial services. Given that the current commercial market is not mature and with available funding, NASA is not able to fund 2 commercial space stations to maintain competition and redundancy. NASA’s new alternate approach of using an incrementally phased transition allows for continued participation from multiple providers and a continued competitive drive to grow the commercial market. Reference the supplemental Concept of Operations and the LEO New Approach Acquisition for the new approach. Industry has already provided significant feedback on the original option including methods for procurement. In light of NASA considering two options, NASA would like comparative input for these options. 2. REQUESTED INFORMATION Information provided will be used solely for internal Government planning, market research, and acquisition strategy development purposes. NASA will not publicly release company-specific data or estimates. Any external communication data will be aggregated, anonymized, and non-attributable. Response to

questions in Section

A. A. Commercial Market Growth Indicators What are the key market demand areas (e.g. tourism, manufacturing in space, media, R&D, etc.) that drive the Commercialization of LEO? a. What are the market drivers, research breakthroughs, technological improvement that will lead to market breakthroughs in LEO? b. What can enable these drivers to come to fruition? c. Will these market areas change over time and when do you anticipate these changes? d. What source of demand do you forecast for these markets (e.g. US Government, Private Industry, Foreign Government)? e. What indicators do you believe can be used to predict when a self-sustaining market can be reached? 2. Is there additional independently verifiable data on market demands that you want NASA to include in its strategy for LEO replacement station? 3. Describe your required investment, phasing, anticipated contributions (by area) and funding approach over time to enable design, development, test and evaluation, sustaining, and operations of your commercial platform. a. Identify whether NASA funding is critical, enabling, or supplemental to your approach. b. Describe how your development approach would change considering the currently available NASA budget. 4. Identify key transportation assumptions used to enable your business case, including: a. Anticipated cost environment b. Availability of providers c. Flight cadence and long-term traffic model for crew and cargo transportation 5. What are the top items that industry would like to see NASA implement on ISS to improve the ability to ignite markets in LEO? a. NASA has changed the Private Astronaut Mission (PAM) Commander Seat policy and will now allow for sale of the seat to a first-time flyer. Would NASA purchase of a seat or pursuing a joint commercial/NASA combined mission be beneficial to industry? b. What other areas does industry see as critical for market growth (e.g. InSPA, commercial cargo missions, etc.)? 6. How do the above answers differ between the original concept and alternative approach? 7. What percent cost offset do you expect to need for the commercial module? 8. Overall commercial space station end-to-end service costs include amortization of development costs, sustaining and infrastructure costs, and transportation costs. Transportation costs represent the majority of the SOMD ISS budget and are paid directly to the crew and cargo providers and would exist regardless of going to ISS or a future commercial station. a. What assumption is industry making about the end-to-end service costs that NASA and other customers will be willing to pay for use of a new commercial station? b. If you expect savings over the ISS transportation costs, what are they and where should NASA and other space agencies look for the associated savings? c. How does the assumed cost amortize the development and sustaining cost across all customers such that all customers pay a fair share in their seat/services cost? Responses to the Request for Information (RFI)

questions in the remaining Sections B- H are for planning purposes only and will be used by NASA to inform and support the development of future acquisition strategies,

requirements, and potential solicitations. Do not submit answers marked proprietary, confidential, or competition-sensitive information in response to this section

B. Architectural Needs to support Market Maturation 1. What are the key drivers and features in a LEO architecture to support investment, market growth and expansion? 2. What commercial opportunities are present for a commercial module attached to the core module prior to and after ISS separation? 3. What are the key functions, resources and services that the Core Module can provide to Commercial modules to enable commercial goals? 4. What are other ideas for continuing to promote commercial growth in this concept? What other architectural features could make this more commercially forward and profitable? 5. In the architecture, does it make sense to consider a commercial bus that multiple modules could use versus each commercial module providing their own propulsion, etc.?