National Aeronautics and Space Administration

A Researcher’s Guide to:

Microbial Research
2

This International Space Station (ISS) Researcher’s Guide is published by 

the NASA ISS Program Science Office.

Authors: 

Sarah L. Castro, Ph.D.

David J. Smith, Ph.D.

C. Mark Ott, Ph.D.

Executive Editor: Amelia Rai

Technical Editor: Neesha Hosein

Designer: Cory Duke

Cover and back cover: 

a. Color-enhanced scanning electron micrograph showing Salmonella typhimurium (red) invading 

cultured human cells Credit: Rocky Mountain Laboratories, NIAID, NIH Source: 

[http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/biodefense/public/images.htm NIAID] 

b. Back Cover 1: Computer-generated bacteria image.

c. Back Cover 2: Computer-generated virus image.
3

An astronaut holding a Microbial Air Sampler (MAS) Petri Dish on the ISS. The MAS is used for the collection of cabin 

air atmosphere for evaluation of the microbial load.

Orbiting the Earth at almost 5 miles per second, a structure exists that is 

nearly the size of a football field and weighs almost a million pounds. The 

International Space Station (ISS) is a testament to international cooperation 

and significant achievements in engineering. Beyond all of this, the ISS is a 

truly unique research platform. The possibilities of what can be discovered 

by conducting research on the ISS are endless and have the potential to 

contribute to the greater good of life on Earth and inspire generations of 

researchers to come. 

As we increase utilization of ISS as a National Laboratory, now is the time 

for investigators to propose new research and to make discoveries 

unveiling novel responses that could not be defined using traditional 

approaches on Earth. 

The Lab is Open
4
5

1. Microgravity, or weightlessness, alters many observable phenomena 

within the physical and life sciences. Systems and processes affected by 

microgravity include surface wetting and interfacial tension, multiphase 

flow and heat transfer, multiphase system dynamics, solidification, and 

fire phenomena and combustion. Microgravity induces a vast array of 

changes in organisms ranging from bacteria to humans, including global 

alterations in gene expression and 3-D aggregation of cells into tissue-like 

architecture.

2. Extreme conditions in the ISS environment include exposure to extreme 

heat and cold cycling, ultra-vacuum, atomic oxygen, and high energy 

radiation. Testing and qualification of materials exposed to these extreme 

conditions have provided data to enable the manufacturing of longlife reliable components used on Earth as well as in the world’s most 

sophisticated satellite and spacecraft components.

3. Low Earth orbit at 51degrees inclination and at a 90-minute orbit 

affords ISS a unique vantage point with an altitude of approximately 240 

miles (400 kilometers) and an orbital path over 90 percent of the Earth’s 

population. 

This can provide improved spatial resolution and variable lighting 

conditions compared to the sun-synchronous orbits of typical Earth 

remote-sensing satellites.

Unique Features of the ISS 

Research Environment
6

Chapter 1: Microbiology Research Priorities on the ISS 7

The ISS as a Microbial Observatory 9

Research Scope of an ISS Microbial Observatory 10

Benefits of an ISS Microbial Observatory 10

Chapter 2: Microbial Diversity of Spaceflight Crew and Craft 13

Chapter 3: Microbial Responses to Spaceflight 17

A Brief History of Microbial-Based Spaceflight Research 17

Chapter 4: Initiating Ground-Based Research – Spaceflight Analogs 20

An Example of a Spaceflight Analog – The Rotating Wall-Vessel Bioreactor 20

Insights Gained form Microbial Culture within the Rotating 

Wall-Vessel Bioreactor 22

Chapter 5: What Should Principal Investigators Know About 

Conducting Research on the ISS? 25

Multipurpose Facilities Available on the ISS 26

Hardware Available for Microbial Experiments 28

Hardware Available for Incubation and Storage 30

Sample Collection, Handling, and Fixation Devices Available on the ISS 31

Process for Payload Development and Implementation 31

Funding Opportunities and Points of Contact 33

Citations 34

Acronyms 41

Table of Contents
7

We are on the cusp of the next giant leap in space exploration and related scientific 

research. The private sector has reinvigorated the space race, and several countries 

have affirmed their intentions of developing a robust human spaceflight program. 

The United States has targeted full utilization of the International Space Station 

(ISS) and set its exploration sights beyond low-Earth orbit. As we determine our 

destinations for the next generation of spaceflight, several questions remain to be 

answered as to the effects of the spaceflight environment on human physiology and 

the microorganisms that will, without question, accompany them. The answers to 

these questions have the potential to benefit not only those who travel in space, but 

also provide knowledge to benefit those who remain on Earth. 

A human is both an individual organism and an entire ecosystem, including 

microorganisms in, on, and around them in which the human cells are greatly 

outnumbered by the microbial cells. The microbial inhabitants in and on the person 

outnumber the human cells 10 to 1. For the most part, these microorganisms are 

beneficial to their human host or otherwise innocuous. Given the right opportunity, 

either a shift in the environment of the host or the invasion to a new location 

within the host, can cause the microorganisms to become pathogenic. Therefore, 

potential pathogens have been present on all NASA missions (Rogers 1986, Castro 

et al. 2004). Protective measures such as stringent microbial monitoring, the use of 

freeze dried foods, and preflight crew quarantine have been used to decrease the risk 

of infectious disease during a mission (Johnston 1969, Rogers 1986). Over the past 

50 years, a combination of operational experience, spaceflight and ground-based 

research have provided tremendous insight into infectious disease risk as well as 

necessary preventative measures (Johnston 1969, Taylor 1972, Taylor 1976, Facius 

1978, Fang et al. 1997, Nickerson et al. 2004, Ott 2004). Significant strides have 

been made to define and mitigate the source of microbial contamination aboard 

spacecraft and to document the responses of numerous microorganisms to the 

spaceflight environment. This collection of experience and research data also helped 

in the identification of critical gaps in our understanding of how this environment 

impacts microbial ecology, the microbial genotypic and phenotypic characteristics, 

and their interactions with plant and animal hosts. As we look toward human 

interplanetary exploration, the importance of this knowledge has been recognized. 

With the increases in both the occupancy and duration of humans aboard the ISS, 

these knowledge gaps are becoming better defined. With the laboratory platform 

aboard ISS, many of these gaps for future spaceflight can be understood. 

Microbiology Research 

Priorities on the ISS
8

There is much to be gained by employing the microgravity environment of 

spaceflight as a basic research platform. Life on Earth evolved in the presence of 

gravity. Therefore, performing research in the reduced gravity of spaceflight holds 

the potential to determine how this physical force shaped terrestrial life. Previous 

spaceflight and ground-based spaceflight analog research has established that 

even microorganisms, the smallest Earth-based life forms, are intrinsically able to 

respond to changes in this force (Dickson 1991, Mishra 1992, Nickerson et al. 

2000, Nickerson et al. 2004). While over 50 years of microbial research has been 

performed in spaceflight, a thorough understanding of microbial responses to 

spaceflight culture and how the spaceflight environment stimulates these responses 

is only beginning to be understood. Microgravity as a research tool, coupled with 

current molecular technology, provides researchers the opportunity to establish 

how variations in this physical force affect microbial life at the cellular, molecular 

and evolutionary levels. This potential is not surprising as innovative answers to 

complicated medical, environmental and agricultural questions have arose from 

assessing the properties of microorganisms in many extreme environments on 

Earth (Nickerson et al. 2004). Similarly, the study of microbes in the spaceflight 

environment holds considerable potential for future, basic research and industrial 

applications. Investigations into microbial ecology, genotypic and phenotypic 

properties, and the infectious disease-causing potential of microorganisms in the 

spaceflight environment, may unveil novel mechanisms that could not be elucidated 

using traditional approaches on Earth, where gravity may be restricting our 

discovery of unique cellular responses. 

Because of both the gaps in our knowledge as to how the spaceflight environment 

affects microorganisms, and the immense prospects associated with conducting 

research in this environment, the National Research Council (NRC) Committee 

for the Decadal Survey on Biological and Physical Sciences in Space 2011 report 

“Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research 

for a New Era,” recommended, with emphasis, on establishing a coordinated, 

large-scale microbial observatory program within the ISS platform. Specifically, the 

committee prioritized: 

1. The establishment of a microbial observatory program on the ISS to conduct 

long-term, multigenerational studies of microbial population dynamics. 

2. The establishment of a robust spaceflight program to research analyzing 

plant and microbial growth in spaceflight environments and physiological 

responses to the multiple stimuli encountered in those environments. 
9

3. The development of a research program aimed at demonstrating the roles of 

microbial-plant systems in long-term life support systems.

The ISS as a Microbial Observatory 

The original concept of microbial observatories as stated by the United States 

National Science Foundation (NSF) was to study and understand microbial 

diversity over time and across environmental gradients. A key element of diversity 

studies is to seek out information about previously unidentified microbes in the 

various environments in which an observatory is established. The ISS is an excellent 

experimental system for studying changes in diversity over time under controlled 

conditions. While the discovery of previously unidentified microorganisms is 

unlikely, the ISS is an ideal setting to study microorganisms in a complex contained, 

isolated, “island-like” ecosystem. Many scientific studies have focused on either 

complex ecosystems that are not well-controlled in a classical experimental sense or 

very simple ecosystems that are well-controlled but severely limited in dimension 

and/or diversity. To date, complex controlled ecosystems have not persisted for 

long periods of time; so studying microbial dynamics within them has been 

necessarily a short-term endeavor. Since its initial launch in the commencement of 

construction in orbit, ISS has been a relatively closed system with the only inputs of 

microorganisms to the ISS arriving with the occasional resupply from Earth along 

with crew changes during ISS increments. Factors influencing microbial growth and 

response are well monitored and recorded, including environmental conditions such 

as temperature and humidity, as well as crew diet and activity. New ISS modules 

and transported cargo are also evaluated for microbial diversity and concentration. 

These punctuated, highly monitored introductions of additional microbes provide 

a platform from which the human/environmental microbiome can be uniquely 

investigated. The ISS offers opportunities to study the dynamics of microbial 

populations and communities in the absence of mass uncontrolled immigration of 

uncharacterized organisms from unknown sources. While other systems may have 

some of the characteristics of ISS, none can match this platform’s unique isolation 

from contaminating contacts. While the ISS is not a completely closed system, 

the low frequency of exchange of materials with the outside and the potential for 

characterization of the microbiology of materials brought to station makes control 

of microbial inputs to this unique system much more achievable. This isolation 

provides the opportunity to gain insight into the interactions between humans and 

environmental organisms and changes in microbial communities through mutation 

or genetic exchange with minimal external interference. 
10

Research Scope of an ISS Microbial Observatory

NASA Space Life Sciences proposes to support research that will discover and 

characterize fundamental mechanisms used by microorganisms and microbial 

communities to adapt to the diverse challenges of the spaceflight environment. 

That research will use advanced molecular biology, genomics, bioinformatics, 

and cultivation technologies to understand spaceflight microbial community 

fundamental properties, interactions with humans, and adaptation to other planets 

or interplanetary space.

Table 1. Opportunities for Microbial Research on the ISS

Benefits of an ISS Microbial Observatory 

There are numerous benefits from enabling and expanding microbial diversity 

research on the ISS. From a microbial ecology perspective, research in this area 

has the potential to play a major role in the development of the microbial ecology 

of indoor environments (Corsi et al. 2012). Millions of dollars have been invested 

to understand the microbial ecology of terrestrial and marine environments, yet 

we know very little about the microbial ecology of the environment we are most 

Subject Area Potential Research Questions for ISS Investigations

Microbial 

Physiology

Does the spaceflight environment cause alterations in microbial growth profiles; 

response to stressors; motility; and microbial metabolism?

Microbial Ecology Does the spaceflight environment cause alterations in the relative roles of microbial 

ecology and evolution; the human and plant microbiome as a subset of the ISS 

microbiome; microbial interactions with the environment over time; microbial population 

dynamics; dynamics of succession; stabilities of closed-model communities (not ambient); mechanisms of community change/biogeography, selection pressure, generational 

aspects within selected microbes versus communities; microbial populations occurring 

naturally in the environment (air, surfaces, water); and the spread of identified strains as 

a result of the spaceflight environment? 

Molecular 

Microbiology

Does the spaceflight environment cause alterations in microbial genomic diversity; 

genomic evolution; microbial sensing; and the microbial transcriptome, proteome, or 

metabolome? 

Microbial 

Interactions

Does the spaceflight environment cause alterations in microbe-microbe interactions; 

host-microbe interactions; plant-microbe interactions; and biofilm formation or function 

(single species and mixed populations)? 
11

intimate with—buildings. Humans in the developed world spend more than 

90 percent of their lives indoors (Klepeis et al. 2001) where they are exposed to 

airborne and surface microorganisms. These microbial communities might be 

intimately connected to human health (Burge 1995, Mitchel et al. 2007, Srikanth 

et al. 2008). Examples include the spread of acute respiratory disease (Cohen 

et al. 2000, Smith 2000, WHO 2007, Glassroth 2008) and the increase in the 

occurrence of asthma symptoms (Ross et al. 2000, Eggleston 2009, Schwartz 2009). 

Historically, buildings were designed to keep microbes outside using barriers and 

elaborate, energy-intensive mechanical systems. Yet we don’t fully understand the 

causes and consequences of microbial diversity in indoor environments. Indoor 

ecology research challenges scientific paradigms for at least two reasons. First, 

it reframes the modern field of microbial ecology to include manmade indoor 

environments. Second, it challenges the perspective that the indoor environment 

is a place for chemistry, physics, and infection control research. Buildings are ideal 

for ecology research because they are accessible, “island-like,” and they can be 

experimentally manipulated. 

The ISS offers an unprecedented opportunity to advance indoor ecology research. 

It provides an experimental platform for controlling two of the largest contributors 

to indoor microbial diversity: ventilation source and occupancy load. Research has 

shown that ventilation source significantly impacts microbial diversity indoors, with 

mechanically ventilated rooms harboring more potential airborne pathogens than 

naturally ventilated rooms (Kembel et al. 2012). It has also been demonstrated that 

human occupancy load impacts the abundance and diversity of airborne microbes 

(Qian et al. 2012). Together, these findings suggest that tremendous knowledge 

would be gained by conducting experiments in a highly controlled environment 

like the ISS where the ventilation source and occupancy load can be systematically 

analyzed. By sampling the built environment microbiome and human microbiome 

in the ISS jointly, it would be possible to tease apart how microbes are exchanged 

among humans, indoor air, and indoor surfaces.

Another unique benefit of the ISS as an experimental, complex closed ecosystem 

is that over time the microbial communities present on the space station are likely 

to become more and more dominated by human-associated microbes. Within the 

confines of the ISS, the environmental control and life support system maintains 

a homeostatic environment suitable for sustaining the human crew for six-month 

increments. This environment also acts to sustain and select a human-associated 
12

microbiome that persists on the ISS across all the increments. As has been observed 

in other environmentally controlled and human-engineered constructs like office 

buildings and airplanes, the microbiome will change in diversity (i.e., number 

of different types or species of microorganisms in the spacecraft) and structure 

(i.e., the relative composition of different types or species) over time. The relative 

abundance of human-associated bacteria, including those that could potentially 

cause disease, is higher indoors than outdoors. As the ISS is relatively closed, the 

microbial diversity is relatively stable throughout the interior of the station, such 

that the dispersion of new microorganisms can be tracked and impact of their 

addition on the “station” community can be evaluated. This premise may also be 

possible for investigations into changes in the astronaut microbiome 

Finally, an ISS Microbial Observatory would provide an opportunity to broaden 

our understanding of the unique microbial responses of microorganisms cultured 

during spaceflight. This aspect of the ISS Microbial Observatory distinguishes 

it from any other available facility, as no other platform can provide this 

microgravity environment. As the microorganisms are adapting their responses to 

this novel environment, information can be gathered that provides unique insight 

into microbial regulation and function that cannot be discerned using traditional 

methodology on Earth.

The use of the ISS as a microbial observatory would drive experiments that could 

decrease infectious disease risk during the human exploration of space, advance 

the application of beneficial purposes for microorganisms (e.g., waste remediation, 

probiotics), and provide unique insight into basic microbial functions and 

interactions that could be translated to studies for scientists and commercial entities 

on Earth. Translation of spaceflight findings has already begun to take place as 

scientists and corporations are investigating the use of ISS microbial findings to 

better understand virulence profiles, antibiotic and disinfectant resistance, biofilm 

formation, and biodegradation properties. 

As NASA travels beyond low-Earth orbit to planets such as Mars, insight from an 

ISS Microbial Observatory will impact our approach to exploration. Understanding 

how spaceflight and gravity alter microbial responses, their exchange of genetic 

material, and their expected concentrations and distribution will be vital in our 

search for extraterrestrial life and concurrent planetary protection.
13

With the exception of sending microorganisms into orbit for research purposes, 

significant care is taken to reduce the levels of microbes in the spaceflight 

environment. Stringent preflight microbiological monitoring and remediation of 

NASA spacecraft has been performed throughout the human spaceflight program 

(Johnston 1969, Rogers 1986, Castro et al. 2004). However, the microbiota of 

the crew members, in combination with an inability to ensure complete sterility 

of the craft and cargo, results in the coexistence of humans and microorganisms 

in the spaceflight environment. In-flight data acquired during Apollo, Skylab, 

and the Mir Space Station missions increased our knowledge of the impact of 

spacecraft habitation on the crew and vehicle microbiota. The findings from these 

early spaceflight programs were critical to the design of latter spacecraft and in 

establishing microbiological acceptability limits for the in-flight environment. 

While this information, in combination with insight gained from the space shuttle 

and ISS programs, has proven critical in our approach to mitigating microbial risk 

to crew members and their vehicle, great numbers of questions remain. 

Microbiological evaluations of the crew members have been in place since the 

first manned Apollo flight with the goal of characterizing the microbial load of 

astronauts preparing for lunar surface exploration (Taylor 1972). During early 

Apollo missions, a thorough microbial baseline was established for each astronaut 

to facilitate the identification of any possible terrestrial contaminants in returned 

lunar samples (1969). Studies conducted during the later Apollo missions were 

designed to identify and prepare for possible microbial-associated issues arising as 

a result of the more lengthy Skylab program (Taylor 1972). The findings of these 

early investigations included identifying trends such as increases in the number of 

sites on a crew member’s body that organisms were isolated from and the quantity 

of those organisms as well as increased levels of microbes in the environment (1969, 

Johnston 1969, Taylor 1972). These early studies also documented the incidence of 

microbial transfer between crew members and the spacecraft environment (Taylor 

1972). The knowledge gained resulted in operational and engineering activities to 

control the environment of the crew concerning crew contacts (quarantine), food, 

water, and air. 

Most of our understanding of the microbial diversity aboard spacecraft has relied 

on the culture of microorganisms using a relatively few types of growth media. 

Generally, the environmental data indicate that the potable water, air, and surfaces 

to which the crew is exposed are free of obligate pathogens; however, opportunistic 

pathogens such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and 

Microbial Diversity of 

Spaceflight Crew and Craft
14

Staphylococcus aureus are not uncommon (Pierson et al. 1996, Castro et al. 2004, 

Pierson 2012). Spaceflight food is another source of microorganisms aboard 

spacecraft. While the incidence of contamination is low, preflight analyses of food 

samples have indicated the presence of organisms such as Salmonella enterica serovar 

Typhimurium (S. Typhimurium), Staphylococcus aureus, Enterobacter cloacae and 

Cronobacter sakazakii (unpublished data). Figure 1 details the relative abundance 

of bacterial and fungal strains isolated from the air and surfaces of the ISS before 

and during flight. As these findings are based on cultured organisms, only a part of 

the picture of the microbial diversity of spacecraft has been captured. By coupling 

current molecular methods with the ISS platform, a higher resolution of this picture 

has the potential to be viewed. 

 
15

While multiple preflight measures are in place to limit microbial contamination 

aboard spacecraft, the limitations of these conventional monitoring methods 

were demonstrated by a comprehensive media-based and microscopic analysis 

of microorganisms isolated from free-floating water collected behind panels 

aboard the Mir Space Station (Ott 2004). Several medically significant organisms 

that were not commonly isolated during standard operational monitoring were 

identified including Legionella species, Serratia marcescens, and Escherichia coli. 

Further microscopic examination of these samples revealed the presence of amoeba 

resembling Acanthamoeba or Hartmanella species and ciliated protozoa resembling 

Stylonychia species (Ott 2004). This finding reinforced the need for a more 

thorough investigation of the microbial diversity of spaceflight habitats, especially at 

time points later in their service life.

Figure 1. The abundance of A) bacterial and B) fungal strains isolated from air and surfaces from 

the International Space Station environment before and during flight. Isolates are categorized by 

genera and relative abundance (Pierson 2012).
16

Preventive measures during spaceflight missions continue to provide protection 

to the crew. While the duration of the preflight quarantine period, which 

reached its peak during the Apollo program, has been significantly reduced for 

crew members (currently, approximately 10 days), it still exists with the goal of 

limiting the number of obligate pathogens that are carried into the spacecraft 

by the crew. Spaceflight food is routinely screened for the presence of harmful 

microorganisms; the ISS is equipped with HEPA filters, and the water system is 

treated with biocides all to reduce the infectious disease risk to the crew. The risk 

of obligate and opportunistic pathogen carriage has not been eliminated. Our 

understanding of the crew microbial flora is primarily based on traditional culturebased methodology, which provided adequate health care; however, a thorough 

understanding of alterations in the crew microbiome using current genetic 

identification, transcriptomic analysis, or other advanced technologies has not been 

accomplished. While a number of studies have been initiated, the alterations in 

the human microbiome are tremendously understudied and hold the potential to 

greatly advance our knowledge of crew health during a spaceflight mission.
17

The short generation time of microorganisms makes them uniquely suited for 

studies assessing responses to altered environmental conditions. Microbial cells were 

among the first Earth-based life forms to be sent into the microgravity environment 

of space. These early investigations established that bacteria and fungi remained 

viable and capable of reproducing while also setting a precedent for conducting 

research in the spaceflight microgravity environment. Although more than 100 

spaceflight experiments involving microorganisms have been conducted over the 

past 50 years, significant gaps in our knowledge as to how this environment impacts 

microbial ecology, microbial genotypic and phenotypic characteristics, and hostmicrobe interactions remain. 

A Brief History of Microbial-based Spaceflight Research 

In 1960, prior to the flight of Yuri Gagarin, scientists from the Union of Soviet 

Socialist Republics (USSR) launched E. coli, Aerobacter aerogenes, and Staphylococcus

into orbit aboard an unmanned satellite (Zhukov-Verezhnikov 1962, ZhukovVerezhnikov 1963). It was this experiment that lead to the conclusion that the 

microgravity environment of space did not affect the viability of the microorganisms 

(Zhukov-Verezhnikov 1962, Zhukov-Verezhnikov 1963). In an important 

subsequent experiment, the USSR launched E. coli aboard Vostok 2 in 1961, which 

resulted in the identification of a variant colony type that was reported to be a result 

of spaceflight factors (Klemparskaya 1964). In 1967, NASA launched the unmanned 

Biosatellite 2, which exposed various biological specimens including E. coli and S. 

Typhimurium to the microgravity environment of space for 45 hours (Mattoni 1968, 

Mattoni 1971). For both microorganisms, an increase in population density was 

noted for the in-flight samples (Mattoni 1968, Mattoni 1971). Bacillus subtilis was 

cultured aboard Apollo 16 and 17 and resulted in the finding that microgravity did 

not affect the developmental process of spore formation (Bucker 1975). However, 

when assessed after culture aboard the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the colony forming 

ability of B. subtilis spores was found to be reduced among spaceflight samples 

(Facius 1978). With evidence mounting that bacteria were able to sense and respond 

to the microgravity environment of spaceflight, the concern of both the U.S. and 

USSR space programs shifted to how these variations could impact crew health. 

Over the course of numerous spaceflights, researchers from various countries 

analyzed changes in antibiotic resistance in E. coli and S. aureus (Tixador 1983, 

Tixador et al. 1985, Tixador et al. 1985, Lapchine 1987). The minimal inhibitory 

concentration (MIC) of oxacillin, chloramphenicol, and erythromycin for S. aureus

and colistin and kanamycin for E. coli were evaluated among in-flight cultures as 

Microbial Responses 

to Spaceflight
18

compared to controls (Tixador et al. 1985, Tixador et al. 1985). These investigations 

documented increased bacterial resistance to all antibiotics tested for both S. aureus

and E. coli. The researchers observed a thickening of the cell wall that accompanied 

the increase in resistance of S. aureus once returned from flight (Tixador et al. 1985, 

Tixador et al. 1985). Various other microbial properties were recorded during this 

time including increased conjugation in E. coli (Ciferi 1988) and increased growth 

kinetics in B. subtilis (Mennigmann and Lange 1986) in response to microgravity. 

The space shuttle era brought with it an enhanced capability to perform biological 

research within the microgravity environment of space and to delve further into 

the implications to human health. In 2006, taking advantage of this opportunity, 

investigators launched several microorganisms including S. Typhimurium aboard 

Space Shuttle Atlantis (STS-115) in an attempt to define the impact of spaceflight 

culture on the disease-causing potential of the microorganisms (Wilson et al. 2007, 

Crabbe et al. 2011). The results of the study were dramatic, with the researchers 

reporting that mice infected with bacteria grown in-flight displayed a decreased time 

to death, increased percent mortality, and decrease in the lethal dose 

(Figure 2 D) (Wilson et al. 2007). Analysis of the fixed returned samples revealed 

differential expression of a large number of genes and identified a regulatory protein 

that was mechanistically associated with the spaceflight response of the organism 

(Wilson et al. 2007). This was the first report elucidating both the molecular 

response connected with a regulatory mechanism and alterations in bacterial 

virulence as a consequence of growth in the spaceflight microgravity environment. 

To confirm these findings and further our understanding of factors influencing 

spaceflight culture-mediated changes in virulence, a follow-up investigation was 

performed on Space Shuttle Endeavor (STS-123) to again assess the response of S.

Typhimurium to the spaceflight environment. This set of experiments included 

culturing S. Typhimurium in various different types of growth media in the 

spaceflight environment (Figure 2 E). The findings from this spaceflight experiment 

confirmed the previous reports of increased virulence of the bacteria (Wilson et 

al. 2008). Furthermore, the data from this assessment revealed that media ion 

concentration dramatically influences the spaceflight-related virulence response of S.

Typhimurium (Wilson et al. 2008).

In addition to microgravity, the spaceflight environment has a unique radiation 

background. Several spaceflight experiments have investigated the impact of this 

radiation on microbial organisms (de Serres 1969, Berry and Volz 1979, Bouloc and 

D’Ari 1991, Horneck et al. 2010); however, our understanding of topics such as 
19

alterations in mutational rates and how these mutations could alter the phenotype 

of the organisms is generally understudied.

Figure 2. Astronauts A) Heidi Stefanyshyn-Piper activates S. Typhimurium to grow in-flight during the MICROBE 

experiment on STS-115 and B) Don Gories activates S. Typhimurium to grow in-flight as part of the MDRV experiment 

on STS-123. After growth in the spaceflight environment, the bacterial samples were returned to Earth and immediately 

used in a mouse model of salmonellosis. The results from both experiments revealed that S. Typhimurium becomes 

more virulent as a result of growing in the microgravity conditions of space. The experiments also described the 

composition of the growth medium as an important factor controlling the change in virulence (Wilson et al. 2007, 

Wilson et al. 2008).
20

Initiating Ground-Based 

Research – Spaceflight 

Analogs 

Microgravity cannot be created on Earth; however, aspects of the microgravity 

environment can be mimicked by use of ground-based simulators. Numerous 

ground-based methods of simulating the microgravity environment of spaceflight 

have been developed and implemented to overcome the constraints that 

accompany biological gravitational research. Ground-based simulators have proven 

indispensable as tools for preparing spaceflight experiments and have generated 

independent investigations. Parabolic flights and drop towers are means of 

providing “free fall” for a limited amount of time; to enable analysis of microbial 

response to aspects of the microgravity environment for greater amounts of time, 

other analogs have been developed using a variety of technology such as clinostats, 

rotating-wall vessels, random positioning machines, and magnetic levitation 

(Klaus 2001, Nickerson et al. 2004, Herranz et al. 2013). While these simulators 

do not eliminate the force of gravity, they reproduce many characteristics of the 

environment produced in true microgravity.

An Example of a Spaceflight Analog – The Rotating 

Wall-Vessel Bioreactor 

Each of the spaceflight analog systems has both unique advantages and 

disadvantages (Klaus 2001, Buels et al. 2009, Dijkstra et al. 2011). Of the simpler 

systems, the rotating-wall vessel (RWV) bioreactor has been increasingly used to 

enhance our understanding of microbial responses that may be occurring during 

spaceflight (Fang et al. 1997, Nickerson et al. 2000, Lynch et al. 2004, Nauman 

et al. 2007, Crabbe et al. 2008, Castro et al. 2011). The RWV (Figure 3 A) is an 

optimized form of suspension culture in which cells are grown in physiologically 

relevant, low-fluid-shear conditions. A cell in liquid media in microgravity 

experiences two unique aspects important in modeling this environment: 1) 

remaining in a constant state of suspension and 2) experiencing a quiescent 

surrounding, devoid of shearing, turbulent forces (Klaus et al. 1997). It is 

these aspects of the microgravity culture environment that the RWV bioreactor 

effectively models.

The components of the RWV bioreactor system include the vessel, rotation base 

unit with oxygen pump, and power supply. The vessel is a thin, cylindrical disc to 

which the cell culture media is introduced by syringe via ports on the vessel’s face. 

Once attached to the base unit, the power supply is turned on initiating rotation 
21

of the vessel a supply of oxygen through a gas permeable membrane on the inner 

backside of the vessel. The entire system can be housed in an incubator to allow 

for optimal cell growth at a fixed temperature (Figure 3 B). As the fully filled 

vessel rotates, its rotational velocity is transferred radially inward until the relative 

fluid motion ceases at which point, solid body rotation of the fluid is achieved 

(Klaus 2001). A cell within this environment experiences the sedimentation effect 

imparted by gravity. As it begins to fall toward the bottom of the vessel, “settle out,” 

it is carried back upward by the solid body rotation of the media and, thus, remains 

suspended in the fluid in an orbital path (Figure 3 D), thereby modeling the first 

aspect of the microgravity environment described above.

During culture in the RWV bioreactor, a microorganism experiences a quiescent, 

low-shear, low-turbulent environment analogous to the second aspect of spaceflight. 

As it is important to note the low-shear effects of the fluid on the cells, the term 

Low-Shear Modeled Microgravity (LSMMG) has been adopted for use in accurately 

Figure 3. The Rotating-Wall Vessel Bioreactor (Synthecon, Houston, Texas). (A) Image of the NASA-designed RWV 

apparatus. (B) RWV culture system in the incubator with their respective base units and power supply systems. (C) The 

altered positioning of the RWV that results in the two culture orientations, depicting the axis of rotation. The LSMMG 

environment is achieved by rotation of the RWV on an axis parallel to the ground, whereas the axis of rotation in the 

control orientation is perpendicular to the ground. (D) Depiction of the orbital path of a cell when cultured in the LSMMG 

orientation. The combination of the sedimentation effect, whereby gravity and lack of motility causes a cell to settle to 

the bottom of the vessel, and the clock-wise solid body rotation of the media results in the continuous suspension of 

the cell in an orbit.
22

describing the environment produced by the RWV bioreactor (Wilson et al. 2002).

In order to assess the response of microorganisms to the LSMMG environment, a 

suitable control culture is required. A standard static or shake flask culture of the 

bacterium in question would not suffice as multiple variables, such as aeration, 

would be altered. Therefore, early analysis with the RWV vessels demonstrated 

that an optimal control could be achieved by simply altering the orientation of the 

vessel to rotate on an axis perpendicular to the ground (Figure 3 C) (Fang et al. 

1997). Because of the altered orientation of the RWV, the bacterial cell is no longer 

suspended in the fluid and the low-shear condition has been disrupted (Fang et 

al. 1997). The use of a reoriented vessel serving as the control has previously been 

utilized and validated by multiple investigators (Fang et al. 1997, Nickerson et al. 

2000, Nickerson et al. 2003, Crabbe et al. 2010, Castro et al. 2011).

Insights Gained from Microbial Culture Within the Rotating 

Wall-Vessel Bioreactor

The RWV bioreactors were initially intended as a spaceflight analog for eukaryotic 

cells (Wolf 1991, Hammond and Hammond 2001) but have since been used to 

examine bacteria (Fang et al. 1997, Nickerson et al. 2000, Crabbe et al. 2008, 

Castro et al. 2011), fungi (Johanson et al. 2002), and archaea (DornmayrPfaffenhuemer et al. 2011) in response to this environment. In the mid-1990s, 

Fang and colleagues were the first to put a bacterium inside the RWV and were 

primarily focused on the effects of LSMMG on secondary metabolite production 

(Fang et al. 1997, Fang et al. 1997). Over the course of their studies, they noted 

that the modeled microgravity environment of the RWV did not alter gramicidin 

production from Bacillus brevis (Fang et al. 1997), decreased beta-lactam 

production by Streptomyces clavuligerus (Fang et al. 1997), inhibited Streptomyces 

hygroscopicus’ production of rapamycin (Fang et al. 2000), and prevented microcin 

B17 production from E. coli (Fang et al. 2000). A summary of certain bacterial, 

fungal and archaeal responses to the simulated microgravity conditions within the 

RWV bioreactors since the work of Fang and colleagues can be found in Table 2. 

Pioneering work by Nickerson and colleagues expanded this area of research by 

connecting the LSMMG response of an enteric pathogen, S. Typhimurium, to a 

human host and the spaceflight environment (Nickerson et al. 2000, Wilson 

et al. 2002, Wilson et al. 2002). The conditions within the RWV were found 

to have profound effects on the behavior of S. Typhimurium including an 

increase in its virulence potential (Nickerson et al. 2000). Mice challenged with 
23

Microorganism Response to Modeled Microgravity 

within the RWV Bioreactor

Reference

S. Typhimurium c3339 - Increased: virulence in a mouse model; resistance to 

acid, thermal, and osmotic stress; macrophage survival

- Decreased: LPS production; resistance to oxidative 

stress; Hfq expression

- Differential gene expression

Nickerson, 2000

Wilson, 2002

Wilson, 2002b

Wilson, 2007

S. Typhimurium 14028 - Increased: virulence in a mouse model and cellular 

invasion

- Differential gene expression

Chopra, 2006

E. coli AMS6 - Increased biofilm formation and resistance to osmotic, 

ethanol and antibiotic stress

Lynch, 2006

E. coli E2348/69 - Increased intimin production Carvalho, 2005

E. coli MG1655 - Decreased growth

- Differential gene expression

Tucker, 2007

E. coli K12 - Differential gene expression Vukanti, 2008

E. coli 083:H1 - Increased resistance to thermal and oxidative stress 

and adhesion to epithelial cells

Allen, 2008

P. aeruginosa PA01 - Increased: biofilm formation; elastase production, and 

rhamnolipid production; alginate production; resistance 

to oxidative and thermal stress; Hfq expression

- Differential gene expression

Crabbe, 2008

Crabbe, 2010

Streptococcus pneumoniae 

TIGR4

- Differential gene expression Allen, 2006

S. aureus N315 - Increased: biofilm formation; susceptibility to whole 

blood

- Decreased: growth; carotenoid production; resistance 

to oxidative stress; Hfq expression

Castro, 2011

S. aureus RF1, RF6, RF11 - Decreased: carotenoid production; hemolytic activity

- Differential gene expression

Rosado, 2010

S. aureus 25923 - Increased: growth and membrane integrity Vukanti, 2012

Yersina Pestis KIMD27 - Decreased: Hela cell rounding Lawal, 2010

Haloferax mediterranei - Increased antibiotic resistance

- Differential pigment production and protein expression

Dornmayr-Pfaffenhuemer, 

2011

Halococcus dombrowskii - Decreased cell aggraegation

- Differential pigment production and protein expression

Dornmayr-Pfaffenhuemer, 

2011

Saccharomyces cerevisiae - Increased aberrant budding

- Differential gene expression

Purevdorj-Gage, 2006

Candida albicans - Increased: filamentous growth; biofilm formation; 

antimicrobial resistance

- Differential gene expression

Altenburg, 2008

Searles, 2011

Table 2. Microbial Responses to Modeled Microgravity
24

LSMMG-cultured S. Typhimurium suffered an increased percent mortality, 

increased time to death, and required a lower LD50 as compared to control 

cultures (Nickerson et al. 2000). The success of the flight analog studies using the 

RWV resulted in the aforementioned two spaceflight experiments involving S.

Typhimurium. One outcome of these investigations was the documented increased 

virulence of the bacterium in response to spaceflight, paralleling the bacterium’s 

response to LSMMG as produced by the RWV (Nickerson et al. 2000, Wilson et 

al. 2007) and validating its use as a spaceflight analog. 

In addition to the similarities between S. Typhimurium cultured in-flight and within 

the RWV bioreactor, other commonalities have been demonstrated. For example, 

scanning electron microscopy images revealed an unidentified extracellular matrix 

around S. Typhimurium cells following spaceflight culture (Wilson et al. 2007), in 

response to the modeled microgravity conditions within the RWV bioreactor P. 

aeruginosa, S. aureus, E. coli, and C. albicans have all demonstrated increased biofilm 

formation (Lynch et al. 2006, Crabbe et al. 2008, Castro et al. 2011, Searles et al. 

2011). With multiple reports of changes in phenotype following exposure to both 

true microgravity and simulated microgravity, differences in gene expression in 

response to culture in these environments is not unexpected. What was surprising 

was the identification of the involvement of Hfq, an RNA chaperone protein that 

exerts post-transcriptional regulation by binding messenger RNA with small noncoding RNA (Valentin-Hansen et al. 2004), with the mechanism governing the 

spaceflight response of S. Typhimurium (Wilson et al. 2007). The role for Hfq was 

validated with the RWV bioreactor and has since been shown to be involved in the 

modeled microgravity response of both P. aeruginosa and S. aureus (Crabbe et al. 

2010, Castro et al. 2011). While first identified in spaceflight, the use of the RWV 

bioreactor on Earth produced evidence that suggests that the ability to sense and 

respond to mechanical stimuli such as microgravity and simulated microgravity may 

be evolutionarily conserved among structurally diverse prokaryotes. 

Figure 4. Increased 

extracellular matrix 

production as a result 

of A) spaceflight 

culture in S. 

Typhimurium and 

modeled microgravity 

in B) P. aeruginosa

and in C) S. aureus 

(Wilson et al. 2007, 

Crabbe et al. 2008, 

Castro et al. 2011).
25

Supporting research in science and technology is an important part of NASA’s 

overall mission. NASA solicits research through the release of NASA Research 

Announcements (NRA), which cover a wide range of scientific disciplines. All NRA 

solicitations are facilitated through the web-based NASA Solicitation and Proposal 

Integrated Review and Evaluation System (NSPIRES) http://nspires.nasaprs.com/

external/. Registering with NSPIRES allows investigators to stay informed of newly 

released NRAs and enables submission of proposals. NSPIRES supports the entire 

lifecycle of NASA research solicitations and awards, from the release of new research 

calls through the peer review and selection process. 

In planning the scope of their proposal, investigators should be aware of available 

resources and the general direction guiding NASA research selection. NASA places 

high priority on recommendations from the 2011 National Research Council’s 

NRC Decadal Survey, which placed emphasis on hypothesis-driven spaceflight 

research. In addition, principal investigators (PI) should be aware that spaceflight 

experiments may be limited by a combination of power, crew time, or volume 

constraints. Launch and/or landing scrubs are not uncommon, and alternative 

implementation scenarios should be considered in order to reduce the risk from 

these scrubs. Preliminary investigations using ground-based simulators may be 

necessary to optimize procedures before spaceflight. Also, many experiments require 

unique hardware to meet the needs of the spaceflight experiment. To understand 

previous spaceflight studies, prospective PIs should familiarize themselves with the 

NASA ISS Program Science Office database, which discusses research previously 

conducted on the ISS, including that of the International Partners. A detailed 

catalog of previous, current, and proposed experiments, facilities, and results, 

including investigator information, research summaries, operations, hardware 

information, and related publications is available at www.nasa.gov/iss-science 

through the NASA ISS Program Office. Additionally, details pertaining to research 

previously supported by the Space Life and Physical Sciences Research and 

Applications Division of NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission 

Directorate can be located in the Space Life & Physical Sciences Research and 

Applications Division Task Book in a searchable online database format at: 

https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/Publication/welcome.cfm. 

What Should Principal 

Investigators Know About 

Conducting Research on 

the ISS?
26

When planning microbiology experiments bound for the ISS, it is important that 

PIs understand the exposure risks to the crew members and implement the required 

levels of containment. Only microorganisms with a biosafety level of 1 or 2 are 

allowed to be flown to the ISS. Biosafety level 1 organisms usually require only one 

level of containment. Biosafety level 2 organisms are broken into two categories, 

those that are moderate risk agents associated with human diseases and in which 

primary exposure routes include percutaneous exposure, ingestion, and mucous 

membrane exposure. Microorganisms that meet this description generally require 

two levels of containment. Biosafety level 2 organisms that are associated with a 

higher risk of human diseases in which a lower infectious dose, the likelihood of 

aerosolization, and/or larger amounts of agent are present may require three levels 

of containment. In order to fly any biological sample, an investigator must submit 

a biohazardous materials form through the NASA Biosafety Review Board (BRB). 

To register with NASA’s BRB, obtain more information on flying biohazardous 

samples, and for the necessary form(s) visit: https://microbrb.jsc.nasa.gov/public/. 

Multipurpose Facilities Available on the ISS 

Biological Experiment Laboratory (BioLab): Biolab Includes an incubator, 

microscope, spectrophotometer, glovebox, freezer units, and two centrifuges 

to simulate the effects of gravity. 

A variety of hardware existing inserts 

and containers for microbiological 

experimentation are available 

through the primary European Space 

Agency (ESA) contractor Astrium 

(www.astrium.eads.net).

Bioculture System (BIOS): The 

NASA Bioculture System is an 

advanced space bioscience culturing 

system capable of supporting 

variable duration and long duration 

experiments on the ISS. BIOS 

provides the ability to culture 

mammalian and non-mammalian 

cells and will allow for investigations 

into host-pathogen interactions. Artist’s impression of BioLab. Credit ESA
27

BIOS has 10 independent incubation chambers and allows for automated sampling 

and injection timelines. 

European Drawer Rack (EDR): EDR supports seven 

Experiment Modules (EMs), each with independent 

cooling, power, and data communications as well as 

vacuum, venting, and nitrogen supply, if required. 

European Modular Cultivation System (EMCS):

EMCS allows for cultivation and stimulation of 

biological experiments under controlled environmental 

conditions (e.g. temperature, gas, water supply and 

light). The EMCS has two centrifuges that can spin at 0 

to 2 times Earth’s gravity.

EXpedite the PRocessing 

of Experiments for Space 

Station Racks (EXPRESS 

Racks): EXPRESS Racks 

is a multipurpose payload 

rack systems that provide structural interfaces, power, 

data, cooling, water, and other items needed to operate 

microbiological experiments in space.

Image Processing Unit (IPU): The IPU receives, records, 

and downlinks experiment image data for experiment 

processing. The IPU is housed in the Ryutai (fluid) 

experiment rack.

BIOS Culture System

Astronaut Michael E. LopezAlegria, Expedition 14 commander 

and NASA space station science 

officer, replaces the European Modular Cultivation System 

(EMCS) Experiment Container (EC) 

in the Destiny laboratory of the 

International Space Station.

The image shows a front view 

of EXpedite the PRocessing of 

Experiments to Space Station 

EXPRESS Rack 4 in the U.S. 

Laboratory, Destiny, during 

Expedition 9. 
28

Light Microscopy Module (LMM): The light imaging microscope that takes 

digital images and videos across many levels of magnification using standard Leica 

objective lenses. It is capable of high resolution black and white microscopy, bright 

field, epifluorescent and fluorescent techniques.

Microgravity Science Glovebox (MSG): The MSG is a contained work 

environment for research with liquids and hazardous materials. It is equipped 

with a front window, built-in gloves, video system and data downlinks allow for 

monitoring enclosed experiments from the ground.

NanoRacks: Nanoracks contains optical and reflective microscopes with digital 

image retrieval for ISS experiments. A NanoRacks Plate Reader is also available to 

monitor samples in microtiter plates with 96 wells with controls for temperature 

and stirring.

Saibo Rack: Saibo rack contains the Cell Biology Experiment Facility (CBEF) 

and Clean Bench (CB). CBEF is an incubator with a micro-G compartment and 

a1G compartment equipped with small centrifuge. CB is a glovebox with a HEPA 

filter and high-performance optical microscope.

Hardware Available for Microbial Experiments 

Advanced Biological Research System (ABRS): ABRS 

is a modular environmental chamber with two growth 

chambers, each capable of independently controlling 

temperature, illumination and atmospheric composition 

for growing and monitoring microbes.

Light Microscopy Module (LMM)

Advanced Biological Research 

System (ABRS)

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency astronaut Satoshi Furukawa, Expedition 29 flight 

engineer, works at the Microgravity Science 

Glovebox (MSG) in the Destiny laboratory of 

the International Space Station.

Greg Chamitoff, Flight Engineer - 2 

works with the Saibo facility in the 

Japanese Experiment Module, Kibo. 

Photo was taken during Expedition 17.
29

Biorisk: Biorisk is a suite of hardware (Biorisk-MSV container; Biorisk-KM case; 

Biorisk-MSN) used to monitor the impact of the space environment on bacteria 

and fungi.

Biological Research in Canisters (BRIC): A BRIC 

is an anodized-aluminum cylinder used to provide 

passive stowage for investigations studying the effects 

of space flight on microbes. It includes fluid chambers 

for controlled nutrient supply and sample fixation. 

BRIC-Opti hardware provides a closed environment 

with an atmosphere of known initial composition for 

microbial growth experiments.

Cell Culturing (CellCult): The CellCult is an automated cell culture container 

with one rotating reactor vessel that is fed fresh medium from a nutrient bag in 

perfusion, batch, or sampling mode.

Expose: Expose provides short- and long-term exposure of microbes to space 

conditions and solar UV radiation. It is installed outside the ISS at the Russian 

Zvezda service module (Expose-R) or European Columbus laboratory (Expose-E).

Fluid Processing Cassette (FPC): The FPC provides a triple-containment system 

used for feeding and fixing microbial culture experiments. The FPC is capable of 

autonomous and battery-powered operations.

Single Loop Cell Culture (SLCC): The SLCC system 

can be used for microbial growth, sub-culturing and 

sampling. It uses active perfusion flow to provide 

nutrients and gas exchange and to purge waste 

products into bladder tank.

JAXA Particle Counter: The Particle Counter is 

designed to detect particles floating in air. It is able 

to display the numeral of particles for six size ranges: 

>0.5, >1.0, >2.0, >3.0, >5.0, >10.0 micro meters. The Particle Counter operates 

with four Alkaline D batteries.

Biological Research in Canisters (BRIC)

Single Loop Cell Culture (SLCC)
30

Hardware Available for Incubation and Storage

Commercial Generic Bioprocessing 

Apparatus (CGBA): The CGBA is a 

programmable, accurate temperature-controlled 

system for cold stowage or incubation studies. 

The BioServe Culture Apparatus (BCA) inside 

the CGBA was developed for suspension cell 

culture research. The hardware allows for 

passive gas exchange in a sterile environment 

and can provide growth media, time-course 

sampling and fixation of cultures.

General Laboratory Active Cryogenic ISS Equipment Refrigerator (GLACIER): 

GLACIER is an ultra-cold freezer (capable of temperatures down to -165°C) with a 

storage volume of 1.35L.

Kriogem-3M: Kriogem-3M is a refrigerator used for the stowage of biological 

samples and incubation of certain types of bioreactors.

KUBIK: KUBIK is a portable incubator that 

can function as a growth chamber 

(+ 6 to 38°C) or stowage. It is equipped with 

compartments for microgravity or artificial 

gravity using a centrifuge.

Minus Eighty-Degree Laboratory Freezer 

(MELFI): MELFI is a refrigerator/freezer 

(capable of temperatures +4°C to -80°C) with a 

storage volume of 175L.

Microgravity Experiment Research 

Locker/Incubator (MERLIN): MERLIN is a 

multipurpose freezer, refrigerator or incubator 

with temperatures between -20°C and 48.5°C 

with a storage volume of 4.17L.

Photograph of CGBA during Increment 33 

showing open containment volume and sample 

canisters. Image courtesy of NASA.

Kubik with centrifuge configuration loaded with 

experiment containers. Image courtesy of ESA.

ISS Commander Sunita Williams and Aki Hoshide 

transferring MELFI samples during Expedition 33.
31

Sample Collection, Handling, and Fixation Devices 

Available on the ISS

Biotube: A large volume incubator with triple-containment and environmental 

controls capable of delivering fixative to specimens and remote monitoring through 

an integrated digital imaging system.

Kennedy Space Center Fixation Tube 

(KFT): KFT was designed to contain microbial 

samples during flight with three safety levels of 

containment. Samples can be chemically fixed 

or stained by activating fluids stored inside a 

separate tube chamber. 

Portable Glovebox (PGB): The PGB is a modular system for preventing 

contamination of microbes when other experimental hardware is opened for 

observations, sampling, or fixations.

Wet Lab Kit: This is a customizable kit with consumables and tools for supporting 

in-orbit sample processing (e.g., disposable glove bags, swabs, wet wipes, etc.). 

JAXA Sampling Kit: JAXA Sampling Kit (Swab & Tube, Sampling Sheet, 

Microbial Detection sheet(MDS)) is used to collect and detect microbes. Sampling 

Sheet is an adhesive sheet to collect microbes. MDS is a sheet-type culture medium 

with non-woven fabrics, which detects microbes on the ISS.

Process for Payload Development and Implementation

Following selection of an experiment for spaceflight, the PI will work with a payload 

integrator or hardware developer to define the most suitable hardware, and determine 

if hardware needs to be created or modified. The research team in combination with 

payload integrations will establish the specific laboratory requirements needed to 

support the experiment. Through these collaborative efforts, concerns such as crew 

procedures and crew training, the need for spare parts and/or contingencies involving 

hardware, and stowage requirements of the samples will be addressed and resolved. 

It is highly recommended that the PI preform a series of investigations using the 

identical hardware and under configuration and control conditions similar to those 

anticipated in-flight prior to the launch. This will prevent unforeseen issues with 

the hardware and allow specific mission constraints to be defined, and mitigated, 

prior to the experiments implementation once aboard the ISS. It is also within this 

Kennedy Space Center Fixation Tube (KFT)
32

time frame that the science team needs to characterize the details involved with 

their synchronous ground controls. The PI’s team should also have finalized all postlanding procedures, including sample preservation, storage, and transport, and data 

acquisition prior to the launch. 

Another option to flying your experiment is through the Center for the Advancement 

of Science in Space (CASIS) (http://www.iss-casis.org). CASIS is a nonprofit 

organization tasked by U.S. Congress and NASA with promoting and enabling 

research on ISS. CASIS can be used for all stages of payload development and can 

match PIs with implementation partners (table below) who can provide heritage 

hardware or new flight packages:

Table 3. Implementation Partners for Flight Experiments on the ISS

Company Contact Information

The Aerospace Corporation www.aero.org

Astrium North America www.astrium-na.com

Astrotech Corporation www.astrotechcorp.com

Aurora Flight Sciences www.aurora.aero

Bionetics Corporation www.bionetics.com

Bioserve www.colorado.edu/engineering/BioServe

Boeing www.boeing.com

CSS-Dynamac www.css-dynamac.com

Hamilton Sundstrand www.hamiltonsundstrand.com

Jamss America www.jamssamerica.com

Kentucky Space, LLC www.kentuckyspace.com

MDA www.mdacorporation.com

MEI Technologies www.meitechinc.com

Nanoracks LLC www.nanoracks.com

Orbital Technologies Corporation www.orbitec.com

Paragon TEC www.paragontec.net

Qinetiq www.qinetiq-na.com

Space Systems Concepts, Inc. www.space-concepts.com

Space Systems Research Corporation www.spacesystemsresearch.com

Tec-Masters, Inc. www.tecmasters.com

Techshot www.techshot.com
33

Table 3. Implementation Partners for Flight Experiments on the ISS continued...

Funding Opportunities and Points of Contact

There are various avenues that can result in funding for research to be conducted 

on the ISS, and the source of funding often dictates the availability of launch 

opportunities. Generally, funding for microbiology-related research is awarded 

through NASA-sponsored research announcements (NRA’s), ISS National 

Laboratory awards through other government agencies, private commercial 

enterprise, nonprofit organizations, and research awards sponsored by the ISS 

International Partners. It is not the responsibility of a researcher awarded an 

ISS flight experiment to fund costs associated with launch or the ISS laboratory 

facilities. Greater detail concerning current funding opportunities for ISS research 

can be found through the NASA ISS research website http://www.nasa.gov/

mission_pages/station/research/ops/research_information.html. 

The NASA Solicitation and Proposed Integrated Review and Evaluation System 

(NSPIRES) can be accessed via http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/. 

Company Contact Information

Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. www.tbe.com

Thales Alenia Space www.thalesgroup.com/space

UAB www.uab.edu/cbse

Wyle Integrated Science and 

Engineering 

www.wyle.com

Zin Technologies www.zin-tech.com
34

Citations

(1969). “Apollo 7to 11: Medical Concerns and Results.” NASA Technical 

Memorandum X-58034.

Berry, D. and P. A. Volz (1979). “Phosphate uptake in Saccharomyces cerevisiae 

Hansen wild type and phenotypes exposed to space flight irradiation.” Appl Environ 

Microbiol 38(4): 751-753.

Bouloc, P. and R. D’Ari (1991). “Escherichia coli metabolism in space.” J Gen 

Microbiol 137(12): 2839-2843.

Bucker, H., Facius, R., Hildebrand, D., Horneck, G. (1975). “Results of the Bacillus 

subtilis Unit of the Biostack II Experiment: Physical Characteristics and Biological 

Effects of Individual Cosmic HZE Particles.” Life Sciences and Space Research 13: 

161-166.

Buels, E., R. Van Houdt, N. Leys, C. Dijkstra, O. Larkin and J. Mahillon (2009). 

“Bacillus thuringiensis conjugation in simulated microgravity.” Astrobiology 9: 797-

805.

Burge, H. A., Ed. (1995). Bioaerosols. Boston, CRC Press.

Castro, S. L., M. Nelman-Gonzalez, C. A. Nickerson and C. M. Ott (2011). 

“Induction of attachment-independent biofilm formation and repression of Hfq 

expression by low-fluid-shear culture of Staphylococcus aureus.” Appl Environ 

Microbiol 77(18): 6368-6378.

Castro, V. A., A. N. Thrasher, M. Healy, C. M. Ott and D. L. Pierson (2004). 

“Microbial characterization during the early habitation of the International Space 

Station.” Microb Ecol 47(2): 119-126.

Ciferi, O., Tiboni, O., Orlandoni, A.M., Marchesi, M.L. (1988). “The effects of 

microgravity on genetic recombination in Escherichia coli.” In: Biorack on Spacelab 

D1: An Overview of the First Flight of Biorack, an ESA Facility for Life Sciences 

Research in Microgravity.

Cohen, M. D., J. T. Zelikoff and R. W. Schlesinger, Eds. (2000). Pulminary 

Immunotoxicology. Boston, Kluwer Academic.

Corsi, R. L., K. A. Kinney and H. Levin (2012). “Microbiomes of built 

environments: 2011 symposium highlights and workgroup recommendations.” 

Indoor Air.
35

Crabbe, A., P. De Boever, R. Van Houdt, H. Moors, M. Mergeay and P. Cornelis 

(2008). “Use of the rotating wall vessel technology to study the effect of shear stress 

on growth behaviour of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA01.” Environ Microbiol 10(8): 

2098-2110.

Crabbe, A., B. Pycke, R. Van Houdt, P. Monsieurs, C. Nickerson, N. Leys and 

P. Cornelis (2010). “Response of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 to low shear 

modelled microgravity involves AlgU regulation.” Environ Microbiol 12(6): 1545-

1564.

Crabbe, A., M. J. Schurr, P. Monsieurs, L. Morici, J. Schurr, J. W. Wilson, C. M. 

Ott, G. Tsaprailis, D. L. Pierson, H. Stefanyshyn-Piper and C. A. Nickerson (2011). 

“Transcriptional and proteomic response of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 to 

spaceflight conditions involves Hfq regulation and reveals a role for oxygen.” Appl 

Environ Microbiol 77(4): 1221-1230.

de Serres, F. J. (1969). “Effects of radiation during space flight on microorganisms 

and plants on the Biosatellite II and Gemini XI Missions.” Life Sci Space Res 7: 62-

66.

Dickson, K. J. (1991). “Summary of Spaceflight Experiments with Cells.” ASGSB 

Bulliten 4: 151-260.

Dijkstra, C. E., O. J. Larkin, P. Anthony, M. R. Davey, L. Eaves, C. E. Rees and R. 

J. Hill (2011). “Diamagnetic levitation enhances growth of liquid bacterial cultures 

by increasing oxygen availability.” J R Soc Interface 8(56): 334-344.

Dornmayr-Pfaffenhuemer, M., A. Legat, K. Schwimbersky, S. Fendrihan and 

H. Stan-Lotter (2011). “Responses of haloarchaea to simulated microgravity.” 

Astrobiology 11(3): 199-205.

Eggleston, P. A. (2009). “Complex interactions of pollutant and allergen exposures 

and their impact on people with asthma.” Pediatrics 123: S160-S167.

Facius, R., Bucker, H., Horneck, G., Reitz, G., Schafer, M. (1978). “Dosimetric and 

Biological Results from the Bacillus subtilis Biostack Experiment with the ApolloSoyuz Test Project.” Life Sciences and Space Research 17: 123-128.

Fang, A., D. L. Pierson, S. K. Mishra and A. L. Demain (2000). “Growth of 

Steptomyces hygroscopicus in rotating-wall bioreactor under simulated microgravity 

inhibits rapamycin production.” Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 54(1): 33-36.
36

Fang, A., D. L. Pierson, S. K. Mishra and A. L. Demain (2000). “Relief from glucose 

interference in microcin B17 biosynthesis by growth in a rotating-wall bioreactor.” 

Lett Appl Microbiol 31(1): 39-41.

Fang, A., D. L. Pierson, S. K. Mishra, D. W. Koenig and A. L. Demain (1997). 

“Gramicidin S production by Bacillus brevis in simulated microgravity.” Curr 

Microbiol 34(4): 199-204.

Fang, A., D. L. Pierson, S. K. Mishra, D. W. Koenig and A. L. Demain (1997). 

“Secondary metabolism in simulated microgravity: beta-lactam production by 

Streptomyces clavuligerus.” J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 18(1): 22-25.

Glassroth, J. (2008). “Pulmonary disease due to nontuberculous mycobacteria.” 

Chest 133(1): 243-251.

Hammond, T. G. and J. M. Hammond (2001). “Optimized suspension culture: the 

rotating-wall vessel.” Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 281(1): F12-25.

Herranz, R., R. Anken, J. Boonstra, M. Braun, P. C. Christianen, M. de Geest, J. 

Hauslage, R. Hilbig, R. J. Hill, M. Lebert, F. J. Medina, N. Vagt, O. Ullrich, J. J. 

van Loon and R. Hemmersbach (2013). “Ground-based facilities for simulation of 

microgravity: organism-specific recommendations for their use, and recommended 

terminology.” Astrobiology 13(1): 1-17.

Horneck, G., D. M. Klaus and R. L. Mancinelli (2010). “Space microbiology.” 

Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 74(1): 121-156.

Johanson, K., P. L. Allen, F. Lewis, L. A. Cubano, L. E. Hyman and T. G. 

Hammond (2002). “Saccharomyces cerevisiae gene expression changes during 

rotating wall vessel suspension culture.” J Appl Physiol 93(6): 2171-2180.

Johnston, R. (1969). “Report on the Status of the Apollo Back Contamination 

Program.” NASA Technical Report.

Kembel, S. W., E. Jones, J. Kline, D. Northcutt, J. Stenson, A. M. Womack, B. J. M. 

Bohannan, G. Brown and J. L. Green (2012). “Architectural design influences the 

diversity and structure of the built environment microbiome.” The ISME Journal.

Klaus, D., S. Simske, P. Todd and L. Stodieck (1997). “Investigation of space 

flight effects on Escherichia coli and a proposed model of underlying physical 

mechanisms.” Microbiology 143 ( Pt 2): 449-455.
37

Klaus, D. M. (2001). “Clinostats and bioreactors.” Gravit Space Biol Bull 14(2): 55-64.

Klemparskaya, N. N. (1964). “Effect of the conditions of cosomis flight on the 

dissociation of Escherichia coli.” Artificial Earth Satellites 15: 106-110.

Klepeis, N. E., W. C. Nelson, W. R. Ott, J. P. Robinson, A. M. Tsang, P. Switzer 

and J. V. Behar (2001). “The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A 

Resource for Assessing Exposure to Environmental Pollutants. .” Journal of Exposure 

Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 11: 231-252.

Lapchine, L., Moatti, N., Richoilley, G., Templier, J., Gasset, G., Tixador, R. 

(1987). “Antibacterial activity of antibiotics in space conditions.” IN: Proceedings 

of hte Norderney Symposium on Scientific Results of the German Spacelab Mission D1, 

Norderney, Germany, August, 1986.

Lynch, S. V., E. L. Brodie and A. Matin (2004). “Role and regulation of sigma S in 

general resistance conferred by low-shear simulated microgravity in Escherichia coli.” 

J Bacteriol 186(24): 8207-8212.

Lynch, S. V., K. Mukundakrishnan, M. R. Benoit, P. S. Ayyaswamy and A. Matin 

(2006). “Escherichia coli biofilms formed under low-shear modeled microgravity in a 

ground-based system.” Appl Environ Microbiol 72(12): 7701-7710.

Mattoni, R. H. T. (1968). “Space-flight effects and gamma radation interaction on 

growth and induction of lysogenic bacteria: A preliminary report.” BioScience 18(6): 

602-608.

Mattoni, R. H. T., Keller, E.C., Ebersold, W.T., Eiserling, F.A., Romig, W.R. (1971). 

“Induction of lysogenic bacteria in the space environment.” In: The Experiments of 

Biosatellite II (Saunders, J.F., ed.) National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 309-

324.

Mennigmann, H. D. and M. Lange (1986). “Growth and differentiation of Bacillus 

subtilis under microgravity.” Naturwissenschaften 73(7): 415-417.

Mishra, S. K. D. L. P. (1992). “Space flight: Effects on Microorganisms.” In J. 

Lederberg (ed.), Encyclopedia of microbiology 4(Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, Calif.).

Mitchel, C. S., J. Zhang, T. Sigsgaard, M. Janunen, P. J. Lioy, R. Samson and M. 

H. Karol (2007). “Current state of science: health effects and indoor environmental 

quality.” Environmental Health Perspectives 115: 958-964.
38

Nauman, E. A., C. M. Ott, E. Sander, D. L. Tucker, D. Pierson, J. W. Wilson and 

C. A. Nickerson (2007). “Novel quantitative biosystem for modeling physiological 

fluid shear stress on cells.” Appl Environ Microbiol 73(3): 699-705.

Nickerson, C. A., C. M. Ott, S. J. Mister, B. J. Morrow, L. Burns-Keliher and D. L. 

Pierson (2000). “Microgravity as a novel environmental signal affecting Salmonella 

enterica serovar Typhimurium virulence.” Infect Immun 68(6): 3147-3152.

Nickerson, C. A., C. M. Ott, J. W. Wilson, R. Ramamurthy, C. L. LeBlanc, K. 

Honer zu Bentrup, T. Hammond and D. L. Pierson (2003). “Low-shear modeled 

microgravity: a global environmental regulatory signal affecting bacterial gene 

expression, physiology, and pathogenesis.” J Microbiol Methods 54(1): 1-11.

Nickerson, C. A., C. M. Ott, J. W. Wilson, R. Ramamurthy and D. L. Pierson 

(2004). “Microbial responses to microgravity and other low-shear environments.” 

Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 68(2): 345-361.

Ott, C. M. B., R.J.; Pierson, D.L. (2004). “Microbial characterization of free floating 

condensate aboard the Mir space station.” Microbial Ecology 47: 133-136.

Pierson, D. L., M. Chidambaram, J. D. Heath, L. Mallary, S. K. Mishra, B. Sharma 

and G. M. Weinstock (1996). “Epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus during space 

flight.” FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 16(3-4): 273-281.

Pierson, D. L. B., D.J.; Bruce, R.J.; Castro, V.A.; Smith, M.J.; Oubre, C.M.; Ott, 

C.M. (2012). Microbial Monitoring of the International Space Station: Environmental 

Monitoring: A Comprehensive Handbook River Grove, IL, DHI Publishing, LLC.

Rogers, E. (1986). “The Ecology of Microorganisms in a Small Closed System: Potential 

Benefits and Problems for Space Station.” NASA Technical Memorandum 86563.

Ross, M. A., L. Curtis, P. A. Scheff, D. O. Hryhorczuk, V. Ramakrishnan, R. A. 

Wadden and V. W. Persky (2000). “Association of asthma symptoms and severity 

with indoor bioaerosols.” Allergy 55: 705-711.

Schwartz, D. (2009). “Gene-environm interactions and airway disease in children.” 

Pediatrics 123: S151-S159.

Searles, S. C., C. M. Woolley, R. A. Petersen, L. E. Hyman and S. M. NielsenPreiss (2011). “Modeled microgravity increases filamentation, biofilm formation, 

phenotypic switching, and antimicrobial resistance in Candida albicans.” Astrobiology

11(8): 825-836.
39

Smith, K. R. (2000). “National burden of disease in India from indoor air pollution.” 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97: 13286-13293.

Srikanth, P., S. Sudharsanam and R. Steinberg (2008). “Bio-aerosols in indoor 

environment.” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology 26: 302-312.

Taylor, G. R. (1972). “Apollo 14 Microbial Analyses.” NASA Technical Memorandum 

X-58094.

Taylor, G. R. K., K. D.; Ekblad, S. S.; Baky, A. A.; Groves, T. O.; Molina, T. C.; 

Decelle, J. G.; Carmichael, C. F.; Gehring, N. J.; Young, E. L.; Shannon, I. L.; Frome, 

W. J.; Funderburk, N. R. (1976). “Microbail Exchange Experiment AR-002.” NASA 

Technical Memorandum.

Tixador, R., G. Richoilley, G. Gasset, H. Planel, N. Moatti, L. Lapchine, L. Enjalbert, 

J. Raffin, R. Bost, S. N. Zaloguev, M. P. Bragina, A. F. Moroz, N. G. Antsiferova and 

F. M. Kirilova (1985). “Preliminary results of Cytos 2 experiment.” Acta Astronaut 

12(2): 131-134.

Tixador, R., G. Richoilley, G. Gasset, J. Templier, J. C. Bes, N. Moatti and L. 

Lapchine (1985). “Study of minimal inhibitory concentration of antibiotics on 

bacteria cultivated in vitro in space (Cytos 2 experiment).” Aviat Space Environ Med 

56(8): 748-751.

Tixador, R., Richoilley, G., Gassett, G., Planel, H., Moatti, N., Lapchine, L., 

Enjalbert, L., Raffin, J., Zaloguev, S.N., Bargina, M.P., Moroz, A.F., Antsiferova, N.G. 

(1983). “Preliminary results of the Cytos2 experiment “ Presented at: 34th Congress of 

hte International Astronautical Federation, October, Budapest, Hungary.

Valentin-Hansen, P., M. Eriksen and C. Udesen (2004). “The bacterial Sm-like 

protein Hfq: a key player in RNA transactions.” Mol Microbiol 51(6): 1525-1533.

WHO (2007). Infection Prevention and Control of Epidemic- and Pandemic-Prone 

Acute Respiratory Diseases in Health Care - WHO interim guidelines.

Wilson, J. W., C. M. Ott, K. Honer zu Bentrup, R. Ramamurthy, L. Quick, S. 

Porwollik, P. Cheng, M. McClelland, G. Tsaprailis, T. Radabaugh, A. Hunt, D. 

Fernandez, E. Richter, M. Shah, M. Kilcoyne, L. Joshi, M. Nelman-Gonzalez, 

S. Hing, M. Parra, P. Dumars, K. Norwood, R. Bober, J. Devich, A. Ruggles, C. 

Goulart, M. Rupert, L. Stodieck, P. Stafford, L. Catella, M. J. Schurr, K. Buchanan, 

L. Morici, J. McCracken, P. Allen, C. Baker-Coleman, T. Hammond, J. Vogel, R. 

Nelson, D. L. Pierson, H. M. Stefanyshyn-Piper and C. A. Nickerson (2007). “Space 
40

flight alters bacterial gene expression and virulence and reveals a role for global 

regulator Hfq.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(41): 16299-16304.

Wilson, J. W., C. M. Ott, L. Quick, R. Davis, K. Honer zu Bentrup, A. Crabbe, E. 

Richter, S. Sarker, J. Barrila, S. Porwollik, P. Cheng, M. McClelland, G. Tsaprailis, 

T. Radabaugh, A. Hunt, M. Shah, M. Nelman-Gonzalez, S. Hing, M. Parra, P. 

Dumars, K. Norwood, R. Bober, J. Devich, A. Ruggles, A. CdeBaca, S. Narayan, 

J. Benjamin, C. Goulart, M. Rupert, L. Catella, M. J. Schurr, K. Buchanan, L. 

Morici, J. McCracken, M. D. Porter, D. L. Pierson, S. M. Smith, M. Mergeay, N. 

Leys, H. M. Stefanyshyn-Piper, D. Gorie and C. A. Nickerson (2008). “Media ion 

composition controls regulatory and virulence response of Salmonella in spaceflight.” 

PLoS One 3(12): e3923.

Wilson, J. W., C. M. Ott, R. Ramamurthy, S. Porwollik, M. McClelland, D. L. 

Pierson and C. A. Nickerson (2002). “Low-Shear modeled microgravity alters the 

Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium stress response in an RpoS-independent 

manner.” Appl Environ Microbiol 68(11): 5408-5416.

Wilson, J. W., R. Ramamurthy, S. Porwollik, M. McClelland, T. Hammond, P. 

Allen, C. M. Ott, D. L. Pierson and C. A. Nickerson (2002). “Microarray analysis 

identifies Salmonella genes belonging to the low-shear modeled microgravity 

regulon.” Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99(21): 13807-13812.

Wolf, D., Schwarz, R. (1991). “Analysis of gravity-induced particle motion and fluid 

perfusion flow in the NASA-designed rotating zero-head-space tissue culture vessel.” 

NASA Technical Paper 3143.

Zhukov-Verezhnikov, N. N., Mayskiy, I.N., Yazdovskiy, V.I., Pekhov, A.P., Rybakov, 

N.I., Gyurdzhian, A.A., Antipov, V.V. (1962). “Microbiological and Cytological 

Studies on Spaceships.” Problems of Space Biology 2: 148-155.

Zhukov-Verezhnikov, N. N., Mayskiy, I.N., Yazdovskiy, V.I., Pekhov, A.P., Rybakov, 

N.I., Klemparskaya, N.N., Gyurdzhian, A.A., Tribulev, G.P., Nefed’yeva, N.P., 

Kapichnikov, M.M., Podoplelov, I.I., Antipov, V.V., Novikova, I.S., Kop’yev, V.Y. 

(1963). “Problems of Space Microbiology and Cytology.” Problems of Space Biology 1: 

133-155.
41

ABRS Advanced Biological Research System

ADVASC-SS Advanced Astroculture Support System

ARCTIC Advanced Thermoelectric Refrigerator/Freezer

BCA BioServe Culture Apparatus

BIOS Bioculture System

BRB Biosafety Review Board

BRIC Biological Research in Canisters

BSTC Biotechnology Specimen Temperature Controller

CASIS Center for the Advancement of Science in Space

CB Clean Bench

CBEF Cell Biology Experiment Facility

CBOSS Cellular Biotechnology Operations Support Systems

CGBA Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus

EC Experiment Container

EDR European Drawer Rack

EM Experiment Module

EMCS European Modular Cultivation System

ESA European Space Agency

EXPRESS EXpedite the PRocessing of Experiments for Space Station

FPC Fluid Processing Cassette

GLACIER General Laboratory Active Cryogenic ISS Equipment Refrigerator

GSM Gas Supply Module

IPU Image Processing Unit

ISS International Space Station

JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

KFT Kennedy Space Center Fixation Tube

LMM Light Microscopy Module

LSMMG Low-Shear Modeled Microgravity

MDS Microbial Detection Sheet

MELFI Minus Eighty-Degree Laboratory Freezer

MERLIN Microgravity Experiment Research Locker/Incubator

MIC Minimal Inhibitory Concentration

MSG Microgravity Science Glovebox

NRA NASA Research Announcements

NRC National Research Council

NSF National Science Foundation

NSPIRES NASA Solicitation and Proposal Integrated Review and Evaluation System

PGB Portable Glovebox

PI Principal Investigators

RWV Rotating-Wall Vessel

SAMS Space Acceleration Measurement System

SLCC Single Loop Cell Culture

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Acronyms
42

The Complete ISS Researcher’s 

Guide Series

1. Acceleration Environment

2. Cellular Biology

3. Combustion Science

4. Earth Observations

5. Fluid Physics

6. Fruit Fly Research

7. Fundamental Physics

8. Human Research

9. Macromolecular Crystal Growth

10. Microbial Research

11. Microgravity Materials Research

12. Plant Science

13. Rodent Research

14. Space Environmental Effects

15. Technology Demonstration

42
43

For more information...

Space Station Science

http://www.nasa.gov/iss-science

Facilities

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/

facilities_category.html

ISS Interactive Reference Guide:

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/ISSRG/index.htm

Researchers/Opportunities

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/

ops/research_information.html

ISS Research Customer Helpline

JSC-ISS-research-helpline@mail.nasa.gov

281-244-6187

43
44

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Johnson Space Center

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson

www.nasa.gov

NP-2013-06-012-JSC