Continuity in low Earth orbit is becoming a key issue for the future space economy
Fifteen years have changed almost everything in the way work in space is viewed. When the International Space Station was completed in 2011, access to orbit was expensive, rare, and largely reserved for government programs. The Space Shuttle had just been retired, the private launch sector was only beginning to gain momentum, and research in weightlessness was for most academic teams and companies more the exception than a realistic development option. In such an environment, low Earth orbit did not function as an economic space, but primarily as an extension of government research and geopolitical priorities. The key change did not come only with cheaper launches or technological progress, but with a different understanding of the purpose of orbital infrastructure itself. The International Space Station gradually ceased to be seen merely as a symbol of engineering success and became a laboratory open to a wider circle of users, from scientific institutions to startups and industry.
That shift had deeper consequences than it initially seemed. While the earlier focus was directed toward the question of how to survive and work in space, today’s approach increasingly starts from how microgravity conditions can bring measurable benefits on Earth. In such a model, research in orbit is no longer an end in itself. It serves the development of medicines, advanced materials, biotechnology, manufacturing processes, and new industrial solutions that are difficult or impossible to develop under the same conditions on the ground. It is precisely this transition, from space as a destination to space as a development platform, that opened room for the emergence of what is today increasingly called the low Earth orbit economy.
From a government laboratory toward a more open research model
To understand the present moment, it is important to recall that the International Space Station was for a long time primarily a tool of national space agencies. NASA and its partners built infrastructure that was meant to ensure long-term human presence beyond Earth, test systems for future deep-space missions, and expand the boundaries of knowledge about the effects of the space environment on humans and technology. That approach was not wrong, but it was limited. If space for experiments is constrained, launches are expensive, and the bureaucratic and operational threshold for entry is high, then neither industry nor smaller research teams can seriously get involved. Opening the station to a broader spectrum of users therefore was not merely an administrative issue, but a prerequisite for creating a new market.
The American ISS National Lab played an important role in this process because it directed part of the American research capacity on the station toward projects that are meant to benefit humanity, and not only support space research for the sake of space itself. In practice, this meant easier access for researchers, commercial partners, and startups that see in microgravity an opportunity to accelerate the development of products and processes. According to the ISS National Lab annual report for fiscal year 2025, a record 115 payloads sponsored by that laboratory were delivered to the station in that year, and nearly 80 percent of those projects came from the commercial sector. The total number of such payloads since the transfer of management to CASIS is now nearly 950, showing that this is no longer a marginal activity, but a lasting pattern of growth.
Why microgravity matters for industry on Earth
One of the reasons why orbital research is being viewed more seriously from an economic perspective lies in the fact that microgravity changes the behavior of materials, liquids, cells, and crystals. Under conditions without the usual influence of gravity, the processes of sedimentation, convection, and separation of components unfold differently, so scientists can observe phenomena that on Earth are masked or hindered. This is not abstract science separated from everyday life. For example, research into the crystallization of proteins and other compounds is already being linked to the development of more precise medicines, more stable formulations, and a better understanding of the molecular structure of biologically important compounds. In its expert reviews, ISS National Lab states that larger, more ordered, and more uniform crystals can be obtained in space, which can have direct consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, optics, electronics, and advanced manufacturing processes.
That is why it is not surprising that today more than 60 percent of research on the International Space Station, according to statements published at the beginning of March 2026 in an ISS National Lab article on continuity in low Earth orbit, is directed toward concrete benefits for life on Earth. This includes pharmaceuticals, materials science, biotechnology, and manufacturing technologies. In translation, space is no longer only a place where it is tested whether humans can survive beyond the planet, but also an environment in which it is examined whether better medicines, higher-quality materials, and procedures with commercial value can be developed. It is precisely this shift in focus that is one of the most important differences between the first era of orbital laboratories and today’s attempt to build a real space economy.
Without a market on Earth, there is no sustainable business in orbit
Still, scientific value alone is not enough for the economy in orbit to become sustainable. Experience so far shows that the best chances are held by companies that do not build their business model exclusively on being in space, but use microgravity as a development advantage for products they will sell on Earth. In other words, orbit can accelerate discovery or improve a process, but the main market still remains on the ground. A company that has no clear path toward customers, regulators, manufacturing, and financial sustainability on Earth will find it difficult to survive in the long term simply because its experiment succeeded in space. This is also perhaps the most important lesson of the last ten years: space does not replace economic logic, it only amplifies it.
That is exactly why the question of continuity becomes important. Business models are not developed in a single flight, nor are scientific results from an orbital experiment turned into an industrial product overnight. Years of iteration, repeated experiments, equipment refinement, regulatory checks, and investment are required. If access to orbit becomes unpredictable or if research infrastructure disappears before replacement platforms appear, the entire development chain can be broken. And when that chain is broken, it is not only individual projects that are lost, but also the confidence of investors, industrial partners, and research teams that have spent years building competencies for work in the space environment.
The International Space Station is entering its final decade
NASA and its partners have for years publicly repeated that the plan is to maintain the operational capability of the International Space Station through 2030. NASA had already earlier published a transition plan toward commercial stations, and in June 2024 it selected SpaceX to develop the American deorbit vehicle that should enable the safe controlled removal of the ISS after the end of its operational life. In that announcement, NASA clearly stated that the end of the ISS’s operational life is planned after 2030 and that the transition toward commercial destinations in low Earth orbit must be prepared in a safe and responsible way. At the same time, the agency reminds that the crew on the station has so far carried out more than 3,300 microgravity experiments, which shows how extensive a scientific and operational base has been built over more than two decades.
But the mere fact that the ISS will remain active for several more years does not solve the fundamental problem. The transition to a new generation of stations will not be successful simply because some new platform appears in orbit. It will be successful only if, at the moment of its arrival, stable demand already exists: research programs, commercial partners, cargo capacities, crews, equipment, and financial interest. That is exactly why expert discussions increasingly say that a break in demand is just as dangerous as a break in technological capability. If a new station is ready, but users are not, the business case weakens from the very start. If users exist, but there is no platform that can accommodate them, development moves elsewhere or simply stops.
In 2026 NASA further emphasizes the need for an uninterrupted presence
Especially telling is the document NASA published in March 2026, in which it speaks about the need for a permanent American presence in low Earth orbit. In that document, the agency openly warns that the commercial station market has not yet proven full economic sustainability and that a flawed transition could lead to a dangerous gap in human presence and research activities in orbit. NASA is considering an approach in which commercial modules would first be attached to the existing ISS infrastructure, in order to gradually prove systems, transfer operational capabilities, and reduce technical risk before complete separation into free flight. This is an important shift in tone: the starting point is no longer the assumption that the market will spontaneously solve the transition, but the need for a carefully managed, phased transition.
That new emphasis shows that the question of continuity is no longer only a topic of commentary from industry or the research community, but also an official strategic problem of American space policy. In the same document, NASA acknowledges that after more than two decades of commercial use of space there has still not been a mass emergence of products or manufacturing markets that would on their own sustain the orbital economy without public support. That does not mean that the potential does not exist, but that the sector remains in a sensitive phase in which institutional support, access to infrastructure, and clear transition rules can determine whether a sustainable market will emerge or merely a series of expensive and short-lived demonstrations.
Commercial stations are advancing, but none has yet replaced the ISS
In such a context, it is especially important that the development of several commercial platforms continues in parallel. On its official pages, NASA states that it supports the multi-phase development of commercial space stations and highlights several key projects: Axiom Station, Blue Origin’s Orbital Reef, and Starlab. Axiom’s model starts from commercial modules that would first be attached to the ISS and then, before the retirement of the station, detach and continue as an independent station. Blue Origin and its partners are developing Orbital Reef as a directly free-flying station, while Starlab is developing an independent platform for research, industry, and international users. In March 2025, Starlab announced that it had completed the Preliminary Design Review, and in February 2026 also the Commercial Critical Design Review, which is important because it marks the transition from the design phase toward manufacturing and system integration.
None of those projects, however, has yet entered an operational phase that could take over the burden the ISS carries today. Axiom is still tied most closely to the station itself and NASA’s transition architecture, while other projects are building separate paths toward free flight. Alongside them, there are also commercial initiatives that were not originally at the center of NASA’s CLD program, but can play an important transitional role. The company Vast thus announced in January 2026 and February 2026 a series of technical updates on the Haven-1 project, and then an updated schedule according to which the station should be ready for launch in the first quarter of 2027. Haven-1 cannot by itself replace the ISS in volume, capacity, or breadth of scientific programs, but it is precisely such smaller platforms and so-called free flyers that can take over part of the demand, enable early commercial operations, and reduce the risk of a complete break in activity during the transition period.
Why “free flyers” matter in the transition period
In the discussion about the future of the orbital economy, the concept of continuity is too often reduced only to the question of hardware. But even if a new station is built on time, that is no guarantee that the entire ecosystem will survive. Regular flights, instruments, logistics, user support, certification standards, insurance, access to financing, and a sufficiently large number of users who will even want to pay for research or manufacturing in microgravity are needed. In that picture, “free flyers”, meaning smaller commercial orbital platforms without direct attachment to a large station, can have double value. First, they can serve as a temporary valve for part of the market demand while larger stations are being developed. Second, they can act as a test environment in which lessons about operations, safety, commercial services, and user experience are learned more quickly.
This is especially important for startups and research teams that cannot afford to wait for years for the full stabilization of the new generation of stations. If the rhythm of missions is lost during the transition period, then what is most valuable is also lost: continuity of knowledge and market habits. An experiment that was supposed to have a follow-up in two years may no longer have funding. A company that convinced investors that it is building a product with an orbital component could be left without access to a platform at the most critical moment. University laboratories could redirect research to other topics. In such a scenario, the loss is not instantly spectacular, but it is strategically deep because the ecosystem cools precisely when it should be moving into a phase of expansion.
What a break in demand would mean
If continuity is lost in orbit, the consequences will not be limited to one station or one government agency. The consequences would spill over to the entire value chain that includes launch companies, equipment manufacturers, suppliers of experimental modules, pharmaceutical and biotechnology partners, universities, insurers, and investors. Without stable utilization of commercial platforms, investors become more cautious, operators find it harder to close the financial structure, and users postpone decisions because they do not know whether access will be available and under what conditions. In other words, without demand, not only does an individual mission weaken, but also the credibility of the entire market. And without credibility, it is difficult to expect greater private investment that should gradually reduce the sector’s reliance on public money.
That is the reason why there is growing talk about the need to maintain a full development pipeline of projects for orbit. It is necessary to continue financing research and development in space, opening opportunities to the academic community and startups, supporting industrial demonstrations, and ensuring that plans for commercial stations do not start in a vacuum. A new station that arrives without users is not a market success, but an expensive bet. A new station that arrives in an environment where active users, contracted programs, and clear reasons for continuous use already exist has a far greater chance of turning into sustainable infrastructure. It is precisely in that difference that the essence of the idea of continuity lies: not only to build a replacement object, but to keep alive the entire system of demand, knowledge, and operational practice.
Orbit as an economic domain, and not only a stage for research
All of the above leads to the broader conclusion that low Earth orbit is no longer only a stage for research, national prestige, or preparation for missions to the Moon and Mars. It is being shaped ever more clearly as a distinct economic domain in which science, industry, logistics, finance, and state strategy meet. This is still not a mature economy in the classical sense of the word, and NASA today admits that quite openly. But it is a space in which decisions with long-term consequences are already being made: whether there will be an uninterrupted human presence, whether private companies will be able to count on stable access, whether public investment will succeed in stimulating a sustainable market, and whether the benefits of research in microgravity will truly spill over into concrete products and processes on Earth.
The experience of the last fifteen years shows that innovations in space do not arise by themselves, but when there is reliable infrastructure, sufficiently frequent access, and enough time for ideas to develop from an experiment into a market-relevant result. The International Space Station provided exactly such continuity, and that is why there is today any basis at all for talking about the future space economy. The next phase will depend on whether the transition from the ISS to commercial platforms is managed patiently, realistically, and without interruptions that would endanger demand. Otherwise, it could turn out that the greatest risk to the future of the space economy is less technological and more organizational: not a lack of ideas, but a lack of an uninterrupted path from idea to orbit and back toward the market on Earth.
Sources:- ISS National Lab – article on continuity in low Earth orbit and the claim that more than 60 percent of ISS research is directed toward benefits for Earth (link)- ISS National Lab – annual report for fiscal year 2025 with the data on a record 115 payloads and nearly 950 total payloads since the transfer of management to CASIS (link)- NASA – overview of commercial space stations and the official plan for the transition from the ISS to commercial destinations in low Earth orbit by the end of the station’s operational life (link)- NASA – decision on the selection of the American ISS deorbit vehicle and confirmation that the end of the station’s operational life is planned after 2030 (link)- NASA – March 2026 document on the need for a permanent American presence in low Earth orbit and a phased approach to the transition toward new commercial platforms (link)- Starlab Space – announcement of the completion of the Preliminary Design Review and the project’s entry into the full development phase (link)- Starlab Space – announcement of the completion of the Commercial Critical Design Review in February 2026 and the transition toward manufacturing and system integration (link)- Vast – technical update on the Haven-1 project and the shift of launch readiness to the first quarter of 2027 (link)
Find accommodation nearby
Creation time: 2 hours ago