Meeting Summary & What We Learned
In-Situ Manufacturing and Resource Availability
From Dr. Averesch's presentation, we learned that one of the biggest challenges of space exploration is reducing the amount of materials that need to be launched from Earth. Since launch costs increase significantly with distance, future missions will need to rely more on in-situ manufacturing, which means producing materials and products directly on the Moon or Mars instead of transporting everything from Earth.
We also learned that the resources available depend on the destination. For example, Mars has access to carbon and nitrogen, while the Moon provides water and regolith (space soil). These differences directly affect how biological systems are designed and what materials can realistically be produced in each environment.
Microbes and the Circular Space Economy
Another important takeaway was the role of microbes in creating a circular economy for space missions. Instead of treating plastic waste as trash, engineered microbes can break it down into smaller molecules and convert those materials into useful products such as new plastics, fibers, or biomass. This approach helps reduce waste while making better use of the limited resources available during long-duration missions.
Finally, we learned that the technologies being developed for space also have major benefits on Earth. Biological recycling offers a more sustainable alternative to traditional plastic production, which depends heavily on fossil fuels. Overall, the presentation showed that microbial engineering can help make future space missions more self-sufficient while also contributing to more sustainable manufacturing practices here on Earth.
Q&A and Engineering Constraints
During our discussion with Dr. Averesch, we asked about the challenges of developing biological systems for space and how enzymatic plastic recycling could fit into future missions. He explained that space systems are designed based on Equivalent System Mass (ESM) rather than traditional financial cost, meaning lightweight and compact technologies are often far more valuable than cheaper, heavier ones.
He also emphasized that the biggest technical hurdle is the fundamental engineering of the microbes themselves, since modifying microbial genomes and maintaining consistent performance takes significant time and effort. We learned that spacecraft size, strict containment requirements for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and precise temperature control have a major influence on final system design.
Finally, Dr. Averesch explained that biological recycling systems could become vital for long-duration missions because they would allow astronauts to reuse plastic waste and produce useful materials, such as feedstock for 3D printing, drastically reducing the need for constant resupply from Earth.
Meeting with Dr. Raviteja
Space Research and Microgravity
Dr. Raviteja gave a presentation about the work of ResearchSat and the challenges of developing technology for space research. He explained that one of the biggest differences between Earth and space is microgravity, where objects float instead of falling. This unique environment allows scientists to perform experiments that cannot be carried out on Earth, especially in areas such as biotechnology, life sciences, and materials research.
ResearchSat focuses on making these kinds of experiments possible by developing reliable research platforms for space. He also explained that designing hardware and software for space requires much higher reliability because cosmic radiation can interfere with electronic systems. To reduce the risk of failures, engineers use redundant systems and additional software protections to ensure spacecraft continue operating correctly in the harsh space environment.
Engineering Challenges in Space Technology
Another key topic of the presentation was the engineering challenges that still exist in space technology. Dr. Raviteja explained that one of the biggest unsolved problems is heat management. While heat on Earth can be transferred through conduction, convection, and radiation, convection is not possible in the vacuum of space, making it much harder to cool electronic components such as microchips.
He also discussed how technologies such as enzymatic plastic recycling and other biological systems must be redesigned for use in microgravity because liquids like water and oil behave very differently in space. Overall, we learned that although many technologies are first tested on Earth, they must be carefully adapted to function in space, and companies like ResearchSat are helping advance scientific research by overcoming these unique engineering challenges.
Supply Chains
Our three bacterial strains, if used outside the lab, would only be small elements in large supply chains.
09 August 2026 Interview with Lindsey
Background
Lindsey has experience in the space industry, including previous work at NASA Ames Research Center in the Intelligent Systems Division. She is also active in the Space Generation Advisory Council (SGAC) and is currently involved in venture capital investing in California, with a focus on companies related to the space industry.
Her Opinion on Our Current Solution Idea
This solution has been attempted in the past, but not using biology and enzymes to break down plastics. Every new element brought into space has its own individual complications in the process.
Key Findings
1. Growing Need for Sustainable Space Waste Management
Lindsey explained that as space missions expand toward the Moon and eventually Mars, waste management will become increasingly important. Current missions largely add to the waste and pollution problem because disposal and resupply are still relatively inexpensive. However, developing sustainable waste-management systems will require organizations — particularly governments and agencies such as NASA — to be willing to invest in recycling and sustainability. She noted that small startups and traditional venture capital investors are generally less likely to fund recycling technologies unless there is a clear financial return.
2. Potential of Enzymatic Plastic Recycling
Lindsey indicated that plastic recycling has been considered previously, but using biological systems and enzymes to break down plastics presents a relatively different approach. She believes enzymatic recycling could become particularly useful once long-term facilities or colonies are established on Mars. The technology could reduce the need to continuously transport replacement materials from Earth and could contribute to greater sustainability for long-duration missions. However, astronaut safety is a major concern — a key question is whether bacteria or enzymes could accidentally escape the recycling system and damage spacecraft equipment, electrical systems, or other mission-critical components.
3. Technology Readiness Is Critical
For a technology to be considered for an actual NASA mission, Lindsey emphasized the importance of NASA's Technology Readiness Level (TRL) framework. Technologies must progress through the nine TRL stages, demonstrating increasing levels of technical maturity before they can be considered suitable for spaceflight. For the team's project, this means moving beyond demonstrating that enzymes can break down PET in a laboratory. Future research should demonstrate reliability, containment, safety, operation under relevant space conditions, and eventually performance in a realistic mission environment.
4. Partnerships and Industry Connections
Lindsey strongly recommended building direct relationships with people in the space and government sectors. Industry events, particularly the International Astronautical Congress (IAC), could provide opportunities to present the project and connect with potential supporters, stakeholders, researchers, and government organizations. She also noted that the space industry is currently relatively open to new ideas, making networking and early engagement important for developing the project.
5. Regulatory and Biological Considerations
For a synthetic-biology-based recycling system, NASA's biological research and regulatory resources should be examined early. Lindsey recommended using NASA's existing biology divisions and publicly available resources to understand the requirements for biological technologies intended for space missions. Safety and containment will likely be major considerations because introducing biological systems into spacecraft creates additional risks that conventional mechanical recycling systems may not have.
6. Economics and the Impact of Starship
One major risk to the team's business case is the rapidly decreasing cost of launching materials into space. Lindsey explained that SpaceX's Starship could significantly increase payload capacity and potentially reduce the cost of transporting materials. Current launch costs have already fallen substantially, with costs discussed in the interview being below approximately $2,000 per kilogram. If launch costs continue to decrease, the economic advantage of recycling materials in space may become less obvious. Therefore, the proposal should not rely solely on the argument that recycling is cheaper than sending replacement materials from Earth. Instead, the project should emphasize additional benefits such as reducing waste, increasing mission autonomy, reducing dependence on resupply, and supporting long-duration missions where transportation from Earth becomes difficult or impractical.
7. Funding and Business Model
Lindsey described venture capital funding as primarily driven by financial returns. Private investors generally want to understand how an investment could produce significant returns, potentially around 5×–10× their original investment. Government funding operates differently — government agencies such as NASA may support technologies when they contribute to national interests, scientific objectives, technological development, or mission capabilities. Therefore, the project may need a mixed funding strategy, combining government or research funding during the development stage with private investment if a commercially viable market can eventually be demonstrated.
8. Current Space Infrastructure and Future Demand
Lindsey noted that current space-station infrastructure is limited, with the International Space Station and China's Tiangong station being major examples. Developing additional private or commercial space stations faces significant challenges involving money, resources, and regulations. Future stations, lunar facilities, and eventually Martian settlements could create new demand for systems that reduce waste and improve resource efficiency.
Implications for Our Project
The interview suggests that enzymatic PET recycling has potential as a long-term sustainability technology for space missions, particularly for future lunar and Martian facilities. However, several challenges must be addressed before it can become mission-ready:
- Demonstrate technical feasibility beyond laboratory-scale PET degradation.
- Progress through NASA's TRL framework and establish clear milestones toward space readiness.
- Prove biological containment and astronaut safety.
- Test the system under relevant spacecraft or space-environment conditions.
- Develop relationships with NASA, government agencies, researchers, and space companies.
- Build a stronger economic case that remains compelling even as launch costs decline.
- Identify potential government applications and national-interest benefits to support public funding.
- Develop a long-term business model that can provide sufficient returns for private investors.
Conclusion
The interview provided strong support for the relevance of sustainable waste management in the future of space exploration, while also highlighting important technical and economic risks. Lindsey's perspective suggests that enzymatic PET recycling may be most valuable for future long-duration missions and established lunar or Martian facilities rather than near-term missions.
The project's next priority should therefore be to demonstrate that the technology can operate safely and reliably in a space environment while simultaneously developing partnerships with NASA, government organizations, researchers, and the broader space industry. Establishing a clear path through NASA's Technology Readiness Levels and developing a compelling economic and mission-based justification will be essential for turning the research concept into a viable space technology.
Questions and Answers
As space missions expand, such as missions to Mars, how do you think waste management will need to evolve?
Currently it's just adding to the pollution problem, which doesn't cost a lot, but you need to find people actually willing to spend money towards recycling and sustainability — government, NASA, etc. — because small startups, private companies, and VCs aren't going to spend money on recycling.
What kinds of partnerships would a team like ours need to move from a research project to a real deal?
Get contacts directly in the space and government industry, aligned with your topic of recycling in space. With all these resources and people, events like the International Astronautical Congress let you pitch your idea and get supporters and stakeholders. Currently the space industry is pretty open to new ideas like this.
If NASA were evaluating a PET recycling system, what factors would determine whether it could actually be used on a mission?
Always go by NASA's Technology Readiness Level — you can search online about it, nine different steps that need to be achieved in order for something to be considered space-ready.
How should we approach the regulatory framework for synthetic biology tools intended for long-term space missions?
NASA has an entire division dedicated to just biology — go to the NASA website as a resource. You can find a lot of info and regulations there.
How interested are startups and companies in space recycling?
Small startups like Astrobotic work on trying to clean up space debris; someone who works there is Carolyn.
Our solution is a safer and cheaper alternative to sending extra rockets up to ship in resources — is there something we haven't considered that puts our proposal at risk? Is it viable?
Currently the space industry is waiting for the SpaceX Starship to launch, because once it launches, the payload capacity is so large they think they can bring anything and everything wherever they want in space. However, the payload capacity is so large they don't know if they have enough customers to use up all that space. Currently it would just be a one-way trip to Mars because they don't have enough fuel to get back to Earth. Priority for them is water, because it's essential for survival. Once Starship starts flying, everything else would be way cheaper to fly in space, but the actual cost from SpaceX is unknown and depends on the customer — currently less than $2k per kg, so SpaceX has already cut the price down substantially.
In your experience, what kinds of technologies are most urgently needed for future space missions?
It varies and differs based on a mission's goals and distance. For missions to the Moon or Mars, astronauts currently go up and down to the International Space Station; after that, the goal is the Moon. For Mars, we haven't made it that far yet, but there's interest in flying Starships around Mars, relying on the gravity of other planets to push the spacecraft without wasting fuel, since current spacecraft don't have enough fuel to make it back to Earth from Mars. Once we actually reach Mars, enzymatic recycling would definitely help sustainability — NASA has done some initial research into it. Once a colony or station is established on Mars, a sustainable solution like this can be put into play.
What are the biggest constraints for introducing new systems into spacecraft?
Astronaut safety and health — whether the enzymatic bacteria could leak and damage the electrical parts of the International Space Station or other spacecraft.
What would you say is the pain point for private space stations right now?
Currently there is only the International Space Station and China's Tiangong space station. NASA is always looking at different projects and testing college ideas and student projects, and is trying to get another station like the ISS up into space. Money, resources, and regulations are the main pain points for launching a new space station — ultimately it depends on whether it satisfies government contracts, since that determines who can actually pay enough to build and launch these stations.
You mentioned that money is an important issue, solved by raising funding. In cases where you were successful raising funds, what backgrounds do the people or organizations providing funding have, and what are they expecting (margin of return, ROI, etc.)?
On the venture capital side, it's purely capitalistic — investment decisions are based on how much return investors get themselves. There's a lot of hype currently around the SpaceX IPO.
Would it be a safe conclusion that any space proposal needs some plan for how to break even or when funders get an ROI?
For venture capital specifically, they want to know how many times they'll get back in return, like 5x or 10x their investment. Non-diluted government-type funding works differently.
Would you say most of the capital that's been raised is private, or is some of it public?
A mix of both, depending on the company. A lot of companies do satellite work, using satellites and radar technology to see what's happening on the ground — which could be used for government surveillance and spying.
Would it be accurate to conclude that private capital is looking for 10x returns, while public/government funding would need to serve the country's national interest?
Yes — ultimately, private investors would need something like 10x ROI, and for public support from governments or organizations like NASA, there has to be some component where they benefit based on national interest.
Would you say space companies are prioritizing other issues, and our project would only be a further-down focus?
The major priority right now is getting another space station launched, because the ISS is estimated to come down within just a few years. That is the more immediate, big priority across the space industry for corporations, companies, and governments — if there is no ISS, every other space achievement would likely be unachievable and pointless.
We care about ordinary consumers!
At iGEM, Human Practices teams can easily get starstruck when talking to exciting experts and visiting high-tech factories like the Poseidon Facility. However, our Human Practices team also reached out to ordinary consumers to talk about the future of recycling plastic.