Microgravity Drug Crystallization: How Merck's ISS Research Informed Keytruda's Subcutaneous Reformulation

1. Summary

1.1 Defining the subject and stating the interpretation
Since 2014, the United States pharmaceutical company Merck & Co., Inc. (known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, and distinct from the separate German firm Merck KGaA) has conducted protein crystallization experiments aboard the International Space Station (ISS) in collaboration with the ISS National Laboratory [2][3][4]. The most cited of these studied the company's flagship cancer immunotherapy pembrolizumab, marketed as Keytruda [1]. This report analyzes that body of work, the formulation product it informed, and the wider sector of in-space pharmaceutical manufacturing within which Merck's activity sits. Where the report reasons beyond documented fact, it labels the reasoning as inference.

1.2 Principal findings
The balance of evidence supports four headline conclusions. First, Merck's microgravity crystallization research is a documented scientific program, not a speculative venture. Experiments on the SpaceX Commercial Resupply Services 10 mission produced crystalline suspensions of pembrolizumab with a homogeneous, single-mode particle size distribution near 39 micrometers, whereas matched ground controls produced a heterogeneous, two-mode distribution of roughly 13 and 102 micrometers [1]. The more uniform crystals exhibited more favorable viscosity and injectability characteristics [1].

Second, this research has now been linked to an approved commercial product. In September 2025 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a subcutaneous formulation of pembrolizumab combined with berahyaluronidase alfa, marketed as Keytruda Qlex, administrable by injection in one to two minutes [5][6]. Merck and the ISS National Laboratory state that more than a decade of space-based crystal growth experiments informed the understanding of crystalline suspensions that underpins subcutaneous delivery [3][5]. The causal weight of the space work relative to terrestrial research cannot be precisely quantified from public sources, and this report treats the space contribution as contributory rather than singular.

Third, the surrounding sector has moved from experiment toward early autonomous manufacturing. Varda Space Industries has flown a series of free-flying capsules that crystallize pharmaceutical compounds in orbit and return them to Earth, beginning with a capsule that produced crystals of the antiviral ritonavir and landed in Utah in February 2024 [13][14]. By mid-2025 the company had secured the first reusable reentry vehicle operator license issued by the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under its Part 450 rule [16].

Fourth, the commercial logic is real but unproven at scale. The macro space economy is projected by the World Economic Forum and McKinsey to grow from approximately US$630 billion in 2023 to about US$1.8 trillion by 2035 [20][21], yet segment-level revenue for in-space pharmaceutical manufacturing is not reliably established in the public record, and the available market-size estimates from commercial research firms vary by an order of magnitude and should be treated as low-confidence.

1.3 Key uncertainties and headline implications
Three uncertainties dominate. The regulatory pathway for manufacturing a finished drug substance in orbit under current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) is not yet defined in the United States, although the United Kingdom issued a coordinated regulatory statement in March 2026 that signals movement [30][31]. The unit economics depend on launch and reentry costs that are falling but remain material, and the durability of demand depends on whether microgravity confers advantages that cannot be replicated by terrestrial formulation technology. For Merck specifically, the strategic context is the scheduled erosion of Keytruda's United States market exclusivity around 2028 and the resulting incentive to extend the franchise through reformulation [7]. The implication for investors and policymakers is that this is a field with a verified scientific basis and at least one concrete product linkage, but with unresolved questions of scale, cost, and oversight that will determine whether it becomes an industry or remains a specialized research tool.

Orbital Biopharmaceuticals and Merck: In-Space Drug Crystallization and the Emerging Microgravity Manufacturing Sector

2. Contextual Background

2.1 Disambiguating the subject

There are two unrelated companies that carry the Merck name, a circumstance that routinely causes confusion. Merck & Co., Inc., headquartered in Rahway, New Jersey, is the originator of pembrolizumab and the subject of the space crystallization work analyzed here. Merck KGaA, headquartered in Darmstadt, Germany, is a separate company that operates in North America under the names EMD and MilliporeSigma. The two have been legally distinct since the First World War. All space crystallization activity discussed in this report belongs to Merck & Co.

A further source of confusion is the company Orbital Therapeutics, whose name pairs an orbital-sounding word with a biopharmaceutical purpose. Orbital Therapeutics develops RNA-based medicines and has no documented space operations; its announced acquirer is Bristol Myers Squibb [32].

2.2 The scientific origin: why crystals are grown in space

The scientific premise predates any commercial interest by decades. Structural biologists determine the three-dimensional structure of proteins largely by X-ray crystallography, a technique that requires growing well-ordered crystals of the protein. Larger and more internally ordered crystals yield higher-resolution structural data, which in turn supports structure-based drug design and improved formulation. Researchers discovered during the Space Shuttle and Mir programs that some protein crystals grown in microgravity were of higher quality than those grown on Earth [4][12].

The mechanistic explanation rests on fluid behavior. On Earth, a growing crystal is denser than the surrounding solution and sinks, a process called sedimentation, while density differences drive buoyancy-induced convection currents that stir the solution. In orbital free fall, commonly termed microgravity, both sedimentation and buoyancy convection are strongly suppressed, so that molecular transport to the crystal surface occurs predominantly by diffusion [11][12]. Diffusive growth allows a stable depletion zone to form around the crystal, which can more effectively exclude impurities and disordered aggregates and can yield crystals of greater internal order [11]. The effect is not universal, and the literature is careful to note exceptions and complicating factors, discussed in Section 4.

2.3 Merck's two-decade space program

Merck & Co. has flown crystal growth experiments to the ISS since 2014 to study how crystals of its molecules form, including the monoclonal antibody used in its cancer therapy [3]. Monoclonal antibodies are large, structurally flexible proteins, and crystallizing them is considerably more difficult than crystallizing small molecules, which had historically discouraged efforts to develop crystalline antibody formulations [1]. Merck's interest was not primarily structural determination but formulation science, namely whether crystalline or microcrystalline suspensions of an antibody could be produced with properties suitable for a more concentrated, lower-volume dosage form.

The most fully documented experiment is reported in a 2019 peer-reviewed paper in the journal npj Microgravity, authored by a Merck research team [1]. The experiment carried pembrolizumab to the ISS on the SpaceX Commercial Resupply Services 10 mission. By exploiting reduced sedimentation and minimal convection, the investigators identified conditions that produced crystalline suspensions with a homogeneous, single-mode particle size distribution of approximately 39 micrometers in high yield, in contrast to ground controls that produced a heterogeneous, two-mode distribution at approximately 13 and 102 micrometers [1]. The smaller, more uniform population obtained in microgravity was better in terms of viscosity and injectability, both of which are central to whether a high-concentration antibody can be delivered by subcutaneous injection rather than intravenous infusion [1].

2.4 From experiment to product

The strategic significance of this work became concrete in 2025. On September 19, 2025, the FDA approved pembrolizumab and berahyaluronidase alfa, marketed as Keytruda Qlex, for subcutaneous injection across the solid-tumor indications previously approved for intravenous pembrolizumab [5][6]. Berahyaluronidase alfa is a recombinant enzyme that temporarily degrades hyaluronan in the subcutaneous space, improving dispersion and permeability so that a large protein dose can be delivered under the skin [5]. The approval was supported by a Phase 3 study demonstrating non-inferior pharmacokinetics relative to the intravenous formulation [6].

Merck and the ISS National Laboratory have publicly connected the subcutaneous program to the company's space-based crystallization research, stating that microgravity experiments since 2014 yielded early insights into the structure and size of crystalline particles best suited to a subcutaneous formulation [3]. This connection is the strongest documented evidence that orbital biopharmaceutical research has informed a marketed medicine. It should nevertheless be characterized precisely. The public record establishes that the space work occurred, that it produced favorable particle characteristics, and that the company attributes formulation insight to it [1][3]. The record does not isolate the marginal contribution of the space experiments from concurrent terrestrial development, and this report therefore treats the space program as a contributing input to a multi-year formulation effort rather than as the sole cause of the product. That distinction matters for any party attempting to value space-based research by reference to this precedent.

3. Key Players and Stakeholders

3.1 Merck & Co. as the anchor pharmaceutical actor

Merck & Co. is the central established-pharmaceutical actor in this analysis, and its incentives are unusually legible. Keytruda is the company's principal product and, by available accounts, the best-selling medicine in the world, generating revenue close to US$29 billion in 2024 and accounting for a large share, by some accounts approaching half, of Merck's total sales [7][8]. That concentration creates a well-recognized vulnerability, because the drug's key United States market exclusivity is expected to erode around 2028, after which biosimilar competition is anticipated to reduce intravenous Keytruda revenue substantially [7]. A subcutaneous formulation that is more convenient for patients and providers, and that carries its own intellectual property and delivery advantages, is a central element of Merck's strategy to retain franchise value through the exclusivity transition [7]. The space crystallization program should be read in this commercial light: it is lifecycle management for a strategically critical asset, not a peripheral science project.

3.2 Government and intergovernmental bodies

The ISS National Laboratory, managed under agreement with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), is the institutional platform through which Merck and other firms access the orbital environment [2][4]. NASA provides the underlying infrastructure and, increasingly, frames in-space research and production as a national objective ahead of the station's planned retirement [23]. Internationally, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) operates a long-running high-quality protein crystal growth program and has published extensively on the microgravity quality effect [11], while comparable programs have historically been run by the European Space Agency. These agencies are stakeholders both as service providers and as standard setters, because their facilities, protocols, and published results shape what commercial actors can credibly claim.

3.3 Commercial in-space manufacturing firms

A cohort of commercial firms has emerged to convert the research base into a service or product business. Varda Space Industries is the most prominent in pharmaceuticals, operating free-flying capsules that crystallize compounds in orbit and return them to Earth, with its first mission crystallizing ritonavir, an antiviral used against human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C [13]. Redwire Space operates the BioFabrication Facility aboard the ISS, a three-dimensional bioprinter that prints with living cells toward the longer-term goal of engineered tissue and, eventually, organs [25][26]. LambdaVision, working with the logistics provider Space Tango, is developing a protein-based artificial retina whose layered manufacture may benefit from the absence of sedimentation in microgravity, supported by a NASA commercialization award [27][28]. These firms differ in product, business model, and maturity, but they share a dependence on the same orbital infrastructure and the same scientific premise.

3.4 Launch and reentry providers

The economics and feasibility of the entire field rest on transportation. SpaceX provides the dominant launch capability and carried Merck's experiments and Varda's first capsule to orbit [1][13]. Rocket Lab has become a central partner to Varda, supplying the Pioneer spacecraft bus that provides power, communications, propulsion, and attitude control for the manufacturing capsule, and managing reentry operations across successive missions [14][17]. The reentry capability is as important as launch, because a manufacturing model that returns physical product to Earth requires a licensed, reliable means of bringing a capsule back through the atmosphere to a recoverable landing [16]. The concentration of this capability in a small number of providers is itself a stakeholder consideration, since it shapes bargaining power and single-point-of-failure risk across the sector.

3.5 Investors and competitors

The capital base is predominantly venture financing. Varda raised a US$90 million Series B round in 2024 and has raised additional capital across subsequent rounds [22]. Public reporting indicates cumulative funding on the order of several hundred million United States dollars and a valuation in the low billions by early 2026, although these figures derive from secondary databases, are not independently confirmed here, and should be treated as provisional. The competitive landscape is not limited to other space firms. The most important competitors to space-based formulation are terrestrial alternatives, namely conventional high-concentration formulation, enzyme-based subcutaneous delivery platforms, and biosimilar manufacturers who will compete directly with reformulated franchises after exclusivity lapses [7]. Any assessment of the field must weigh orbital approaches against these ground-based substitutes rather than in isolation.

4. Technical and Operational Considerations

4.1 The microgravity advantage and its mechanisms

The technical case for orbital biopharmaceutical work rests on a small number of physical effects whose direction is well understood even where their magnitude is variable. In a terrestrial vessel, gravity drives three processes that interfere with orderly crystallization: sedimentation, in which growing crystals settle and aggregate; buoyancy-driven convection, in which warmer or less dense fluid rises and mixes the solution; and the resulting disruption of the concentration gradient immediately surrounding each crystal. In microgravity these gravity-dependent processes are strongly attenuated, leaving diffusion as the dominant transport mechanism [11][12]. Diffusion-limited growth tends to produce a stable, quiescent depletion zone around each crystal, which acts as a molecular filter, preferentially excluding larger and more disordered protein aggregates from incorporation into the growing lattice [12]. For structural biology, the practical consequence has historically been larger crystals with superior X-ray diffraction quality for a subset of proteins [4][11]. For formulation science, as in Merck's case, the consequence is the ability to engineer crystalline suspensions with controlled, uniform particle size, which directly governs viscosity and injectability [1].

A point of precision matters here. The orbital advantage in the Merck case was not chiefly about determining an unknown structure, since the structure of pembrolizumab was already characterized, but about controlling the physical form of a crystalline drug substance. This distinction separates two value propositions that are often conflated in public discussion: the use of microgravity as a research instrument to learn something transferable to ground manufacturing, and the use of microgravity as a production environment to make material that is then used or sold. Merck's documented activity falls predominantly in the first category, while Varda's model aims at the second [1][13].

4.2 Limits, complicating factors, and reproducibility

The evidence does not support an unqualified claim that space is better for crystallization. Three complications recur in the literature. First, the suppression of buoyancy convection does not eliminate all fluid motion. Marangoni convection, driven by surface-tension gradients at liquid interfaces, can persist in microgravity and has been observed to impose a cyclic character on crystal growth that erodes some of the expected benefit [11]. Second, residual accelerations from crew activity, machinery, and vehicle maneuvers, collectively termed g-jitter, perturb the quiescent environment and can induce unwanted motion of crystals and fluid [11]. Third, and most consequential commercially, results are not uniformly reproducible across proteins or across flights. The benefit is real for some molecules under some conditions and negligible or absent for others, which is precisely why decades of experiments have been required and why the field is characterized by case-by-case empirical validation rather than a general guarantee [4][12].

This reproducibility problem is the central operational risk of the entire field. A manufacturing process must be consistent to satisfy regulators and to be economically predictable. The orbital environment introduces variability that terrestrial facilities are engineered to eliminate, and overcoming that variability at production scale is an unsolved problem rather than a demonstrated capability.

4.3 Two operating models

Two distinct operating models have emerged, and conflating them obscures the analysis. The first is the hosted-research model, in which a pharmaceutical company sends experiments to a crewed station such as the ISS, where samples are processed and then returned with cargo flights. This is the model Merck used, and its strength is access to a mature, power-rich, crew-tended facility with established research infrastructure [2][4]. Its weakness is that it is constrained by the station's schedule, throughput, and finite remaining operational life [23].

The second is the autonomous free-flyer model, in which an uncrewed capsule conducts processing under automated control and then performs an independent atmospheric reentry to deliver product to the ground. Varda exemplifies this approach, pairing a manufacturing capsule with a service spacecraft for power and propulsion and then separating a heat-shielded capsule for reentry and recovery [13][14][17]. The strength of this model is independence from station scheduling and a path toward repeatable, dedicated production runs. Its weaknesses are the engineering burden of reentry, the limited mass and power available on a small capsule, and the absence of human intervention if a process deviates in flight.

4.4 Scale-up, supply chain, and the reentry constraint

The decisive operational question is scale. Microgravity crystallization has produced research-quantity and demonstration-quantity material, but the public record does not establish that any company has manufactured a commercial-scale quantity of a finished drug substance in orbit. Scaling implies repeated launches, larger or more numerous reactors, reliable automated process control, and a recovery cadence sufficient to feed a terrestrial supply chain. Each of these multiplies cost and introduces failure modes.

Reentry is the constraint with no terrestrial analogue. A returned capsule must survive aerodynamic heating, decelerate, and land within a controlled area without damaging a temperature-sensitive biological product. The maturation of this capability is visible in the regulatory record: Varda's first capsule required a reentry license that was initially denied and then granted in February 2024 before the capsule landed in Utah [13][15], and by June 2025 the company had obtained a reusable reentry vehicle operator license permitting repeated returns without bespoke approval for each identical flight [16]. The trajectory is one of incremental de-risking rather than solved routine, and cold-chain integrity of returned biologics through reentry and recovery remains a demanding, under-documented engineering problem.

4.5 Adjacent modalities as evidence of breadth and difficulty

Two adjacent modalities clarify both the promise and the difficulty of the field. Redwire's BioFabrication Facility prints three-dimensional structures from bioinks containing living cells; in microgravity, soft tissues can hold their shape without the support scaffolds that gravity necessitates on Earth, and the program has printed tissue samples including cardiac and meniscus material as steps toward engineered tissue [25][26]. LambdaVision's protein-based artificial retina is built from many stacked layers of a light-activated protein, and the company's rationale for orbit is that terrestrial sedimentation and buoyancy produce uneven layers and material waste, which microgravity may reduce [27][28]. A useful cautionary precedent comes from outside pharmaceuticals: exotic optical fibers such as ZBLAN, a heavy-metal fluoride glass, were promoted for more than two decades as a high-value-to-mass application for in-space manufacturing, yet sustained commercial production has been slow to materialize, illustrating how a sound physical rationale can outrun commercial realization by many years [33][10]. The breadth of these efforts indicates a genuine technical field; their uneven progress indicates that physical plausibility is necessary but not sufficient for an industry.

5. Economic and Market Dynamics

5.1 The space-economy backdrop and the limits of market sizing

The macro backdrop is one of expected growth. The World Economic Forum, in partnership with McKinsey, projects the global space economy to rise from approximately US$630 billion in 2023 to about US$1.8 trillion by 2035, a rate that would outpace global gross domestic product growth [20][21]. That headline figure is dominated by communications, positioning and navigation, and Earth observation, not by in-space manufacturing, which remains a small and early segment within it [20]. Analysts attempting to size the in-space manufacturing segment specifically produce estimates that diverge by an order of magnitude, with some commercial market-research firms placing the segment near US$1 billion in the mid-2020s and others several times higher, reflecting incompatible definitions and assumptions. This report treats segment-level market-size figures as low-confidence and methodologically inconsistent, and it does not adopt any single estimate as authoritative. The defensible statement is qualitative: the addressable market is currently small, its future size is genuinely uncertain, and pharmaceuticals are repeatedly identified as one of the few product categories with sufficient value density to justify the cost of orbit [29][34].

5.2 The value-to-mass logic and cost drivers

The economic logic of in-space manufacturing reduces to a single ratio: value per unit mass returned to Earth, measured against the cost per unit mass to launch and recover. Only products of very high value density can clear the threshold. This is why pharmaceuticals, certain protein crystals, and specialty optical materials recur as candidate products, since their value-to-mass ratios can be extreme [33][34]. The cost side has improved markedly because of reusable launch. Publicly reported figures place the cost of reaching low Earth orbit on a reusable Falcon 9 in the low thousands of United States dollars per kilogram, a substantial reduction from the historical norm, with proposed next-generation vehicles targeting further order-of-magnitude reductions that, if realized, would widen the set of economically viable products [29][34]. These forward cost figures are aspirational and should be treated as such.

Even with cheaper launch, the cost structure of a returning manufacturer is heavier than that of a satellite operator, because it must pay for both the outbound launch and the inbound reentry and recovery, plus the capital cost of a recoverable capsule and its heat shield [13][16]. The implication is that favorable launch economics are necessary but not sufficient; the recovery leg and the capsule capital cost are decisive and are precisely where the free-flyer firms are concentrating their engineering.

5.3 Merck's specific economic rationale

For Merck, the economics are best understood not as a manufacturing business but as research-and-development investment in defense of a franchise. Keytruda's revenue faces erosion of key United States exclusivity around 2028 [7][8]. Even a partial migration of patients to a subcutaneous formulation with its own intellectual property and a multi-minute administration time can defend a meaningful portion of that revenue base [7]. Against a franchise of this magnitude, the cost of a series of ISS crystallization experiments is trivial, which reframes the value of the space program. Its return is measured not in material sold from orbit but in the probability-weighted value of formulation knowledge that helps preserve a multi-billion-dollar product line. This is a different and more favorable economic proposition than that facing a standalone in-space manufacturer, and it explains why an incumbent pharmaceutical company can rationally invest in orbit even if a pure-play orbital manufacturing business remains unproven.

5.4 Capital requirements and the venture model

The standalone firms operate on venture capital and government awards rather than product revenue. Varda's disclosed financing includes a US$90 million Series B round in 2024, with additional rounds reported subsequently, while LambdaVision has advanced on the strength of a NASA commercialization award alongside private capital [22][28]. This funding structure implies a long pre-revenue runway and a dependence on continued investor confidence and public co-funding. The capital intensity is driven by the need to develop spacecraft, reentry systems, and automated process hardware in parallel, none of which generates revenue until an end-to-end mission both succeeds technically and yields a saleable or franchise-relevant product. The model therefore concentrates risk in the period before commercial validation, and it is sensitive to the cost of capital and to the cadence of demonstrated milestones.

5.5 Value-creation pathways and the skeptical case

There are three plausible value-creation pathways, and they should be weighed against a coherent skeptical case. The first pathway is knowledge transfer, in which orbital experiments inform superior terrestrial manufacturing, as the Merck precedent suggests [1][3]. The second is orbital production of small quantities of extremely high-value material that cannot be made on Earth at comparable quality, a proposition that remains demonstrated only at research scale [13]. The third is a services model, in which firms sell access and process development to pharmaceutical clients rather than selling product. The skeptical case is that for most molecules the terrestrial alternative, namely improved formulation, engineered enzymes for subcutaneous delivery, and conventional process optimization, will prove cheaper and faster than orbit, confining space to a narrow set of cases where it offers a genuinely non-replicable advantage [29]. The ZBLAN (heavy metal fluoride glass) experience is a sober reminder that a category can retain a compelling physical rationale for decades without converting it into durable revenue [33]. On the current evidence, the knowledge-transfer pathway is the best supported, the production pathway is promising but unproven at scale, and the breadth of the eventual market is unresolved.

6. Regulatory Landscape

6.1 The terrestrial baseline and where orbit breaks it

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is governed by current good manufacturing practice, a body of regulation enforced in the United States by the FDA and internationally by counterpart agencies, that prescribes how drugs must be produced, controlled, documented, and inspected to assure identity, strength, quality, and purity. These regimes were written for terrestrial facilities and presume capabilities that orbit complicates or removes, including routine on-site inspection, immediate human intervention, environmental monitoring under known gravity, and validated, reproducible process control [29]. An autonomous orbital reactor cannot be inspected in the conventional sense, cannot be entered by an investigator, and operates in an environment whose subtle variability, namely residual accelerations and interface-driven convection, is the opposite of the tightly controlled conditions cGMP assumes [29]. Commentators anticipate that regulators will need to rely on remote regulatory assessment and novel validation approaches to oversee space-based production, but no settled United States framework yet exists [29].

6.2 Launch and reentry licensing

A separate and more mature regulatory layer governs the transportation itself. In the United States, commercial launch and reentry are licensed by the FAA under its consolidated Part 450 rule, which addresses public safety for launch and for return through the atmosphere [19]. This regime has been tested and advanced specifically by in-space manufacturing. Varda received the first Part 450 reentry license in United States history for its initial capsule, after an earlier application was denied, and subsequently obtained a reusable reentry vehicle operator license in 2025 that authorizes repeated returns of identical capsules without separate per-flight safety re-approval, with the authorization running until later in the decade [15][16]. The Congressional Research Service has examined commercial launch and reentry regulation and the policy questions it raises, indicating active legislative attention to a regime that is still maturing [19]. The transportation layer is therefore comparatively well developed, even as the manufacturing-quality layer remains undefined.

FAA documents outline SpaceX plans for Starfall reentry vehicles

FAA documents have provided new details about a SpaceX project for reentry vehicles that could be used to support in-space manufacturing projects.

SpaceNewsJeff Foust

6.3 Emerging frameworks and divergent national posture

Regulatory movement is now visible, and notably it has come first from outside the United States. On March 5, 2026, the United Kingdom Space Agency, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the Regulatory Innovation Office, and the Civil Aviation Authority issued a coordinated statement committing to a supportive framework for medicines manufactured in space, including new guidance, a regulatory sandbox for testing approaches while managing risk, and supply-chain engagement, building on the MHRA's earlier framework for decentralized and modular manufacturing [30][31]. This is, on the available record, the most concrete state action specifically directed at in-orbit pharmaceutical manufacturing. The FDA has not yet issued an equivalent dedicated pathway, leaving the United States posture as one of applying existing terrestrial authorities to novel circumstances rather than purpose-built guidance [29]. This divergence is itself strategically significant, since the jurisdiction that first offers regulatory clarity may attract development activity

6.4 Cross-jurisdictional fragmentation

Because a single orbital mission can implicate multiple legal regimes at once, namely the launching state's space-law obligations, the transportation regulator's licensing, and the medicines regulator's quality oversight, fragmentation is an inherent feature of the landscape. A product crystallized in orbit, returned to one country, finished in another, and marketed in a third would traverse several non-harmonized frameworks. The absence of international harmonization for space-manufactured medicines creates both compliance complexity and an opportunity for regulatory arbitrage, in which firms domicile activity where the pathway is clearest. For the foreseeable future, the regulatory variable is at least as important as the technical variable in determining where and whether orbital biopharmaceutical manufacturing advances [30][31].

7. Geopolitical and Strategic Dimensions

7.1 The post-ISS transition and orbital infrastructure

The single most important strategic variable for this field over the next decade is the planned retirement of the ISS around 2030 and the transition to commercial successor stations. NASA intends to deorbit the station at the end of the decade and has contracted for a dedicated deorbit vehicle, while supporting the development of privately operated stations through its Commercial Low Earth Orbit Destinations program, with candidate platforms including Axiom Station, Orbital Reef, and Starlab [23][24]. For hosted-research users such as Merck, this transition is consequential, because the mature, crew-tended laboratory that enabled the pembrolizumab work will be withdrawn before its commercial replacements are fully proven [24]. A capability gap, if one opens between the station's retirement and the readiness of successors, would interrupt the hosted-research pathway and shift relative advantage toward autonomous free-flyers that do not depend on a crewed platform [13]. The strategic question for every stakeholder is whether continuous orbital access for biopharmaceutical research will be preserved through the transition, and the answer is not yet settled.

7.2 Great-power competition and parallel programs

Orbital biopharmaceutical research does not occur in a geopolitical vacuum. China operates its own crewed station, Tiangong, and has reported a broad program of on-orbit science that explicitly includes high-throughput protein crystallization and biotechnology research, with reporting indicating well over one hundred experiments and a substantial cumulative project count [35]. The existence of a parallel, state-backed capability means that microgravity pharmaceutical research is becoming an arena of national scientific competition as well as commercial activity. If the techniques that informed a Western reformulation prove generalizable, the capacity to conduct such research at scale becomes a strategic asset, and exclusive or preferential access to orbital research platforms becomes a point of national differentiation. This dynamic raises the stakes of the post-ISS transition, since a Western capability gap would coincide with a continuously operating competitor platform [35].

7.3 Export controls and technology transfer

The technologies involved sit squarely within export-control regimes. United States export controls divide responsibility between the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), administered by the Department of State for defense articles on the United States Munitions List, and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), administered by the Department of Commerce for dual-use items with both civil and military applications [18]. Spacecraft, reentry vehicles, and associated technical data have historically been sensitive under these regimes, and although a series of reforms has moved some commercial space items from the munitions list to the dual-use list, reentry and propulsion technologies remain areas of particular control sensitivity [18]. For an industry whose core competence includes precise, controllable atmospheric reentry, which is technically adjacent to capabilities of military interest, export-control compliance is not a peripheral administrative matter but a structural constraint on international partnership, supply chain, and capital formation [18]. It shapes which collaborations are permissible and raises the cost of cross-border activity.

7.4 Supply-chain sovereignty and biosecurity

A further strategic dimension concerns the resilience and sovereignty of pharmaceutical supply. Advocates frame in-space and advanced manufacturing as a route to more distributed, resilient production, and the United Kingdom's regulatory initiative is explicitly tied to industrial and supply-chain objectives [30][31]. The deep-space and exploration context adds a distinct rationale, since long-duration crewed missions cannot resupply medicines from Earth and may eventually require on-site fabrication, a problem examined in the pharmaceutical literature on manufacturing medicines beyond low Earth orbit [9]. These sovereignty and exploration arguments are real but should be held at appropriate confidence. They describe strategic options and future contingencies rather than present capabilities, and the near-term reality remains that orbital activity is a specialized adjunct to a terrestrial pharmaceutical system, not a substitute for it [9][29].

8. Risk Analysis

8.1 Choice of analytical format

The principal risks in this field are deeply interdependent, since regulatory uncertainty, unproven unit economics, and unreproven technical reproducibility reinforce one another, and the underlying dataset is too small, namely a handful of firms and missions, to support quantified probabilities without conveying false precision. The discussion below addresses, across three horizons, the four required categories of technical, regulatory, financial, and adoption risk.

8.2 Short term, one to three years

In the near term the dominant risks are technical and financial. The technical risk is reproducibility: the benefit of microgravity is demonstrated for specific molecules under specific conditions but is neither universal nor guaranteed, and a high-profile failed or null mission would damage confidence across the sector [4][12]. The closely linked financial risk is funding continuity. The standalone firms are pre-revenue and dependent on venture capital and public awards, which makes them sensitive to the cost of capital and to investor patience; a tightening financing environment could starve the field before commercial validation [22][28]. Regulatory risk in this window is moderate on the transportation side, where the FAA reentry-licensing regime is now functioning, but elevated on the manufacturing-quality side, where no United States cGMP pathway for orbital production exists and uncertainty itself deters investment [16][29]. Adoption risk is comparatively low in the short term only because expectations are correspondingly low; the immediate demand is for research access and process knowledge, exemplified by the incumbent-led model that Merck represents, rather than for orbital production volume [1][3].

8.3 Medium term, three to seven years

The medium term is defined by the ISS transition and by the test of whether the production model can scale. The infrastructure risk is acute: if the ISS retires around 2030 before commercial stations are reliably operational, the hosted-research pathway that enabled the Merck precedent could be interrupted, disproportionately affecting incumbent pharmaceutical users who prefer crew-tended facilities [23][24]. The technical-and-financial risk in this window is scale-up, since moving from demonstration quantities to commercially or clinically meaningful quantities of a finished drug substance in orbit is unproven and capital-intensive, and failure to demonstrate a credible scaling path would undermine the pure-play investment thesis [13][29]. Regulatory risk becomes pivotal and bifurcated: jurisdictions that establish clear pathways, as the United Kingdom has begun to do, may attract activity, while those that delay may cede it, making regulatory divergence a driver of where the industry locates [30][31]. Adoption risk rises in importance, because this is the window in which pharmaceutical decision-makers will judge whether orbital approaches offer advantages that terrestrial formulation and enzyme-based subcutaneous delivery cannot replicate more cheaply [7][29].

8.4 Long term, seven or more years

Over the long horizon the risks are the most uncertain and the most consequential, and they are better described as structural questions than as estimable probabilities. The defining technical-and-market question is substitution: whether terrestrial science advances quickly enough to render most orbital production unnecessary, confining space to a narrow set of non-replicable cases, a risk underscored by the slow commercial realization of earlier high-value-to-mass space-manufacturing categories such as ZBLAN optical fiber [33]. The long-term strategic risk is geopolitical, since sustained divergence in national orbital capability and in regulatory openness could concentrate advantage in particular jurisdictions and politicize access to research platforms [35]. The long-term opportunity, conversely, lies in deep-space exploration, where on-site medicine fabrication may shift from option to necessity and where today's research builds foundational capability [9]. The appropriate posture toward this horizon is epistemic humility: the physical rationale is durable, but whether it becomes a material industry depends on the compounding of launch cost, regulatory clarity, scientific reproducibility, and demand, none of which can be confidently forecast at this range.

9. Strategic Recommendations

9.1 For institutional investors

Institutional investors should treat the orbital biopharmaceutical field as a high-variance, long-duration option rather than as a near-term revenue story, and size positions accordingly. The defensible thesis is selective. The most attractive risk-adjusted exposure is to the enabling layer, namely launch and reentry providers and platform operators whose revenue does not depend on any single drug succeeding in orbit, because that layer benefits from the entire sector's activity regardless of which product applications prevail [14][17][24]. Direct exposure to pure-play orbital manufacturers should be underwritten against three explicit milestones: demonstrated process reproducibility across multiple missions, a credible and licensed reentry-recovery cadence, and a defined regulatory pathway for the intended product, with the absence of any one treated as a material gating risk [16][29]. Investors should discount commercial market-size projections heavily, given their order-of-magnitude divergence, and should instead track concrete leading indicators, namely mission success rates, regulatory milestones, and signed pharmaceutical-client agreements [21][30]. The Merck precedent is best read by investors as validation of the knowledge-transfer pathway rather than as evidence that standalone orbital production is imminently profitable [1][3].

9.2 For corporate strategists at pharmaceutical incumbents

For established pharmaceutical companies, the strategic lesson of the Merck case is that orbital research can be a cost-effective, asymmetric bet in service of franchise defense, and it should be evaluated on that basis. The relevant comparison is not orbital production versus terrestrial production, but the modest cost of a targeted research program against the probability-weighted value of formulation insight for a high-value asset facing exclusivity loss [1][7]. Strategists managing large biologic franchises with looming patent cliffs should specifically assess whether microgravity crystallization could inform a differentiated subcutaneous or high-concentration formulation, while contracting that work through hosted-research platforms or free-flyer services rather than building in-house space capability, thereby capturing the upside without the capital burden [3][13]. Incumbents should also engage early with regulators on the quality pathway, because a company that helps shape the cGMP framework for novel manufacturing environments secures both influence and first-mover familiarity [29][30]. Finally, strategists should monitor the ISS transition closely, since continuity of orbital research access is a dependency they do not control and should plan around [23][24].

9.3 For policymakers and regulators

Policymakers face a coordination problem whose resolution will shape where this nascent activity locates. The clearest near-term action is to reduce regulatory uncertainty on the manufacturing-quality side, following the direction the United Kingdom has signaled, by issuing principles-based guidance, establishing regulatory sandboxes, and clarifying how remote assessment can substitute for on-site inspection of autonomous orbital facilities [29][30][31]. Regulators should pursue international harmonization deliberately, because a product that is launched, processed, recovered, finished, and marketed across different jurisdictions will otherwise face fragmented and possibly conflicting oversight, and early coordination is cheaper than later reconciliation [30][31]. Policymakers concerned with strategic competitiveness should treat continuity of orbital research access through the ISS-to-commercial transition as a national capability question, not merely a procurement matter, given that a parallel state-backed platform continues to operate elsewhere [24][35]. At the same time, export-control authorities should calibrate controls so that legitimate biopharmaceutical research collaboration is not unduly impeded while genuinely sensitive reentry and propulsion technologies remain protected, recognizing the dual-use tension at the heart of the field [18].

10. Methodology, Scope, and Limitations

10.1 Method and source base

This report was prepared by identifying the verifiable referents of an ambiguous subject phrase and then analyzing the documented activity at the intersection of space-based research and biopharmaceutical development. The source base prioritizes primary and authoritative material, including a peer-reviewed experimental paper, a regulatory approval record, an agency financial disclosure, government and intergovernmental publications, and named company and institutional statements, supplemented by reputable trade and analytical reporting where primary sources are not available [1][5][8][20]. Where sources disagree or where figures originate from a single secondary database, the text flags the limitation explicitly rather than presenting contested numbers as settled.

10.2 Limitations and confidence

Three limitations bound the confidence of this analysis. First, the central causal claim that space-based crystallization materially enabled a marketed subcutaneous formulation rests substantially on statements by the interested parties, and while the underlying experiment is independently published, the marginal contribution of the space work cannot be isolated from concurrent terrestrial development [1][3]. Second, market-size and company-valuation figures in this domain are weak, divergent, and partly derived from commercial databases that could not be independently verified, and they are accordingly treated as low-confidence throughout [21]. Third, the field is evolving quickly, and several developments referenced here, including the maturation of reentry licensing, the ISS transition timeline, and the United Kingdom regulatory initiative, are recent and subject to change [16][23][30]. The analysis should therefore be read as a synthesis of the public record as of mid-2026, with explicit separation between what is documented and what is inferred, rather than as a forecast offered with false precision.

References

1. Reichert, Paul, Winifred Prosise, Thierry O. Fischmann, Giovanna Scapin, Chakravarthy Narasimhan, April Spinale, Ray Polniak, et al. 2019. "Pembrolizumab Microgravity Crystallization Experimentation." npj Microgravity 5: 28.

2. International Space Station National Laboratory. 2019. "Merck Research Laboratories Publishes Pembrolizumab Results." ISS360. Accessed June 13, 2026.

3. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 2025. "Space Station Research Informs New FDA-Approved Cancer Therapy." NASA. Accessed June 13, 2026.

4. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. n.d. "Creating New and Better Drugs with Protein Crystal Growth Experiments." NASA. Accessed June 13, 2026.

5. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2025. "FDA Approves Pembrolizumab and Berahyaluronidase Alfa-pmph for Subcutaneous Injection." September 19, 2025. Accessed June 13, 2026.

6. American Association for Cancer Research. 2025. "New Pembrolizumab Formulation Approved for Subcutaneous Injection." AACR. Accessed June 13, 2026.

7. BioPharma Dive. 2025. "Half of Merck's Sales Are in Jeopardy. Can Keytruda's Sequel Save the Day?" Accessed June 13, 2026.

8. Merck & Co., Inc. 2025. "Merck Announces Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year 2024 Financial Results." Form 8-K, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, February 4, 2025.

9. Seoane-Viaño, Iria, Jun Jie Ong, Abdul W. Basit, and Alvaro Goyanes. 2022. "To Infinity and Beyond: Strategies for Fabricating Medicines in Outer Space." International Journal of Pharmaceutics: X 4: 100121.

10. Chemical & Engineering News. 2022. "Pharma Goes to Space." Chemical & Engineering News 100 (40).

11. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. n.d. "Effect of Microgravity on the Quality of Protein Crystal." Protein Crystal Growth on the International Space Station. Accessed June 13, 2026.

12. Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute. 2021. "Microgravity as an Environment for Macromolecular Crystallization." Buffalo, NY. Accessed June 13, 2026.

13. Space.com. 2024. "Private Varda Space Capsule Returns to Earth with Space-Grown Antiviral Drug Aboard." February 2024. Accessed June 13, 2026.

14. Rocket Lab. 2024. "Rocket Lab Successfully Returns Spacecraft Capsule to Earth, Brings Back Pharmaceuticals Made in Space." Press release. Accessed June 13, 2026.

15. SpaceNews. 2024. "Varda Gets Reentry License for Space Manufacturing Capsule." February 2024. Accessed June 13, 2026.

16. Varda Space Industries. 2025. "Varda Space Industries Launches W-4 with the FAA's First-Ever Reentry Vehicle Operator License and Debuts an In-House Satellite Bus." PR Newswire, June 23, 2025. Accessed June 13, 2026.

17. Rocket Lab. 2025. "Touchdown for In-Space Manufacturing Mission: Rocket Lab's Pioneer Spacecraft Delivers Re-Entry for Varda's In-Space Manufacturing Capsule in South Australia." Press release. Accessed June 13, 2026.

18. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. n.d. "Introduction to U.S. Export Controls for the Commercial Space Industry." Accessed June 13, 2026.

19. Congressional Research Service. 2025. "Commercial Space Launch and Reentry Regulations: Overview and Select Issues." Report R48582. Washington, DC.

20. World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company. 2024. Space: The $1.8 Trillion Opportunity for Global Economic Growth. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

21. McKinsey & Company. 2024. "The Space Economy Is Projected to Reach $1.8 Trillion by 2035." Accessed June 13, 2026.

22. Varda Space Industries. 2024. "Varda Announces $90 Million Series B Funding to Build Factories in Space." PR Newswire, April 2024. Accessed June 13, 2026.

23. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. n.d. "FAQs: The International Space Station Transition Plan." NASA. Accessed June 13, 2026.

24. Space.com. 2025. "NASA Will Say Goodbye to the International Space Station in 2030 and Welcome in the Age of Commercial Space Stations." Accessed June 13, 2026.

25. International Space Station National Laboratory. n.d. "BioFabrication Facility." Accessed June 13, 2026.

26. Redwire Space. n.d. "Redwire Launching 3D Bioprinted Liver Tissue to Space, Advancing Tissue Engineering Research for Organ Replacement." Accessed June 13, 2026.

27. National Eye Institute. n.d. "An Artificial Retina Engineered from Ancient Protein Heads to Space." Accessed June 13, 2026.

28. International Space Station National Laboratory. n.d. "Biotech Startup Turns to Space to Manufacture Artificial Retinas for Treating Blindness." Accessed June 13, 2026.

29. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. 2025. "Drug Development in Microgravity: The Next Frontier in Biopharmaceutical Innovation." May 27, 2025. Accessed June 13, 2026.

30. Pharmaceutical Journal. 2026. "Regulators Set Out Support for In-Orbit Pharmaceutical Manufacturing." Accessed June 13, 2026.

31. UK Space Agency, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Regulatory Innovation Office, and Civil Aviation Authority. 2026. "Joint Statement on Regulatory Support for In-Orbit Manufacturing of Medicines." March 5, 2026. Accessed June 13, 2026.

32. BioPharma Dive. 2025. "Bristol's $1.5B Orbital Buyout Extends 'In Vivo' Cell Therapy Deal Streak." Accessed June 13, 2026.

33. International Space Station National Laboratory. n.d. "Manufacturing ZBLAN in Space." Upward. Accessed June 13, 2026.

34. CNBC. 2026. "The Space Race Is Coming for Pharma: Why Drug Development Is Heading to Lower Earth Orbit." June 9, 2026. Accessed June 13, 2026.

35. SpaceDaily. 2025. "China Shenzhou XX Crew Advances Cognitive and Biotech Research Aboard Tiangong." Accessed June 13, 2026.