SANTA FE, N.M. — A NASA study examined several options for continuing a national laboratory in low Earth orbit after the International Space Station but stopped in need of recommending a selected option.
The study by the agency’s Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy, released by NASA Dec. 20, represents what it calls an “initial assessment” of models for a future national lab in low Earth orbit (LEO) after retirement of the ISS. The study was directed by the National Space Council at its September 2022 meeting and released to coincide with the council’s most up-to-date meeting Dec. 20.
The 154-page report reviewed approaches to interchange the International Space Station National Laboratory, the formal name given to the 50% of U.S. resources on the ISS put aside as a national lab. That lab is administrated by the Center for the Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), a non-profit organization, under an agreement with NASA.
The study reviewed six models for a future national lab that may use facilities on industrial space stations — called industrial LEO destinations or CLDs by NASA — or other spacecraft. Those models offered wide ranges in roles the federal government would play, with NASA leasing dedicated space on a industrial station at one extreme and the agency providing grants to users who would lease facilities on CLDs on their very own at the opposite.
The study assessed the six models using five criteria, from ability to fulfill NASA must equity and accessibility, and using three scenarios of dynamic, regular and limited growth in overall industrial LEO activities. The study didn’t explicitly consider the associated fee of the assorted options.
The model that scored the perfect, by way of being favorable across all market scenarios, was one called “Government Research Broker” where NASA serves as a broker for arranging flights of experiments on CLDs or other industrial spacecraft, an approach the study in comparison with NASA’s Launch Services Program for acquiring launches.
“The Government Research Broker provides a reliable option for NASA to proceed activities in LEO in any future scenario, meeting the needs of all but considered one of the stakeholder-driven performance criteria,” the report stated. The exception was an element called market sustainability, since the model might compete with CLD providers in some facets.
Nonetheless, the report stopped in need of recommending that model, or every other, for a future LEO national laboratory, noting that facets of the models is likely to be combined as NASA continues development of a method. “The report concludes that nobody model by itself represents a whole strategy for a future national laboratory,” it states.
In additional to evaluating models for a future national lab, the report offers some recommendations on how NASA and CASIS can support a transition from the present ISS National Laboratory. NASA and CASIS could work with private corporations to amass space on modules or spacecraft before the retirement of the ISS in addition to buy data directly from industrial providers.
The shift from the ISS National Laboratory to any future model involving industrial space stations would require legislative changes. A 2005 NASA authorization act established a national lab using ISS resources, with a 2010 act formally allocating no less than half of U.S. resources on the ISS for the lab, a requirement the report noted is “overly restrictive” particularly in a post-ISS environment.
The report adds that there may not explicitly be a national laboratory in LEO once the ISS is retired, depending on the model chosen for supporting research in LEO. “The National Laboratory nomenclature could also be completely faraway from laws, or the intent of a National Laboratory may transition to a brand new model in a post-ISS LEO ecosystem that lacks a government-owned platform,” it states.