In-space manufacturing is the process of manufacturing goods uniquely leveraging the space environment, in particular space vacuum, low temperatures, or microgravity. This is not a novel concept, as many public and private actors have worked over several decades to make in-space manufacturing successful. It reached a pinnacle in the ‘80s during the space shuttle era, and the focused activities of the NASA commercial centers remain to date where we have most of the success stories of potential products in microgravity (Cozmuta, 2016). However, in-space manufacturing did not take off at that time because companies were not able to close the business case. That was because the price per pound transported to and from Earth’s orbit was extremely high and because the shuttle did not fly as often as initially advertised. Furthermore, there was no commercially friendly infrastructure to support quarterly revenue building as bedrock for sustainable businesses. Four decades later, we are experiencing a shift in financing and technologies that the space industry calls New Space.

Three main shaping forces determine the success of companies pursuing in-space manufacturing: technology, economics, and policies. Technological advancements require research and development funds, fueled by government spending in the case of basic and even some early applied research, and private investment in the case of the last stages of applied research and product development. Technology, economics, and policies are closely intertwined. Space policies determine the spending priorities of the federal government, which in turn generate the basis for product development, insofar as such products can satisfy existing market demand.

Many specialized entities are conducting analyses on the space market and its contributions, but and there are some conflicting definitions of space manufacturing and in-space manufacturing.

In a recent study, the Department of Commerce included in the category of space manufacturing many space-related products, notably “manufacturing of satellites; ground equipment; and search, detection, navigation, and guidance systems (GPS/PNT equipment) (Highfill et al., 2020).” Today space providers such as Airbus and Boeing equate space manufacturing with manufacturing for space; in other words, manufacturing structures on Earth, assembling them on Earth, and then launching these structures and operating them in space. So what should be considered in-space manufacturing and what should not?

A distinction needs to be made within the umbrella of space manufacturing. Some focus on in-situ resource utilization or manufacturing products in space for applications in space. However, the more immediate economic need is for intellectual property and products that companies can commercialize on Earth. As much as we would like to dream of humanity becoming a truly interplanetary species, the reality, for now, is that all of us are part of the economy here on Earth. Extensive research and development are still necessary to determine whether such products are economically viable. If space manufacturing were an established market today, the commodity traded on this market would be products manufactured in space for Earth and space use.

The International Space Station (ISS) remains the place where in-space manufacturing has been tested so far. The station currently dubs as a platform for kickstarting the space economy (NASA, 2019). The ISS has been continuously inhabited for the past two decades. According to the ISS Program Science Forum (2019), 2775 investigations have been conducted on the ISS, out of which 2098 were completed. One thousand five hundred thirty-four unique investigators from 68 countries conducted these experiments. The lifespan of the ISS has been extended several times, but the national laboratory will eventually come to an end as the bulk of its technologies are surpassed by new systems. Since 2016, NASA has been working extensively with Axiom Space to make the transition to commercial space stations. The latest indications from Congress suggest a 2030 extension; however, funding has to be secured for the continued operation of the ISS. It seems that companies now have less than a decade to prove their success with R&D onboard the national lab. A question remains of how can this success best be measured.