During the Cold War space race, scientists became quite interested in the effects of microgravity. Before that time, we principally sent assembled equipment to space in the form of satellites starting in 1957 with Sputnik. Prior to the dawn of the Space Age, we did not extensively consider the effects of the zero- or low-gravity environment.
Once the human spaceflight era began, important considerations such as the effects of microgravity on primary systems (atoms, molecules, fluids, cells, tissues, plants and so on) and support systems (environmental control and life support, fire suppression systems, consumables, science glove box and so on) had to be taken into account to enable a sustained human presence in space and to contemplate and then sustain long-duration habitation of space. The access to space afforded by Apollo, Soyuz, the Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station (ISS) provided mechanisms to begin exploring phenomena in the unique microgravity environment. The burgeoning commercial crew programs that will follow promise safe, reliable, more affordable, and regular access that is intended to expand opportunities that will lead to space-enabled terrestrial advancements, greater exploitation of the potential of low Earth orbit, and longer-duration and sustained exploration of the solar system, including the Moon, asteroids, and Mars.
And thus, with this catalytic beginning sparked by an international space race not quite 60 years ago, the field of microgravity research was thrust into the global incubator as space-faring nations hastily pursued basic and applied research and development (R&D), measured and probed their astronauts, rapidly refined their related systems, expanded focused technology development activities, and pushed the boundaries of understanding and applied benefits even further.1
Advancements in terrestrial microgravity research capabilities also flourished in the 1990s both domestically and internationally. Countries including Japan, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as academic institutions such as Purdue University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Arizona State University, expanded their capabilities and research programs. These endeavors provided researchers access to a myriad of microgravity research platforms including drop towers, parabolic flights, and suborbital rockets. These alternatives are far less expensive, but also less capable than space-based resources. Collectively, these made up a broad, integrated architecture of experimental flight opportunities that when combined with ground-based R&D capabilities afforded researchers a variety of cost-to-performance options.
Government funding for microgravity research reached its peak during the early effort to assemble the ISS. Regular and recurrent Space Shuttle flights provided a significant traffic flow to and from space, and there was a strong demand for knowledge-informed systems solutions for the ISS. National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA)’s budgets related to microgravity R&D exceeded 100 million dollars per year between 1994 and 1998.2 However, since then, funding for a robust microgravity program has been tenuous and inconsistent due to limited NASA funds available for the ISS program overall. Compounding factors including the US market and housing collapse of 2001 followed by a global recession in 2008, the 2003 Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and associated delays in the construction of the ISS, drastically reduced Russian space spending, the lack of a Chinese human spaceflight program in space until 2005, and the 2010 cancellation of the Constellation program with its associated redirection from a lunar and Mars focus all contributed to funding issues in the US Space program. When faced with the choice between finishing the construction of the ISS or funding the science, construction was deemed imperative.
The constrained budgets of the early 2000s precipitated a fundamental shift in the US government’s approach to the exploration, development, exploitation, and utilization of space. In 2005, the NASA administrator set forth a new strategic direction that the Congress endorsed in the 2005 NASA Authorization Act and was subsequently reflected in the 2010 National Space Policy, which was an important shift toward the stimulation, growth, and utilization of a robust US commercial space industrial base. This would afford the government purchase of services in low earth orbit with the expectation that the next generation of space would be more heavily funded by the private sector so that limited government funding could be focused on inherently governmental space missions, including deep space exploration.3
NASA and its international partners have so far invested tens of billions—some argue as much as $100 billion—in developing and operating the unique orbiting facility that is the ISS.4 In the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, the US Congress also embraced a policy that broadened the potential for value creation from its investments in ISS, by designating the US portion of the ISS as a National Laboratory requiring that no less than 15% of all ISS research be nonexploration related. Then, in 2010, Congress passed another Authorization Act directing the establishment of an independent nonprofit entity to manage 50% of the ISS resources for non-NASA mission activities.5 NASA commissioned a design concept for a national laboratory entity to manage the non-NASA uses of the ISS with an enterprise design that would maximize the value of the American investments in the ISS. This reference model for the ISS National Laboratory (ISS NL report) examined ways to optimize the utilization and derive value from the ISS, given both its capabilities and challenges.6 The concepts developed in this model outlined and identified the elements needed to create robust and stable market conditions to take maximum advantage of the planned ready-access to space and completion of a world-class facility.