07/10/2025 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 07/10/2025 07:34
What GAO Found
Space is increasingly important to the daily lives of Americans, to the economy, and to national defense. The number of active satellites in space providing critical services increased from 1,400 in 2015 to more than 11,000 in 2025. An additional 18,000 or more are projected to be launched by 2030, according to market analyses.
In-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) technology has the potential to improve current satellite capabilities and to open new capabilities, such as orbital debris removal, space-based solar energy, larger space telescopes, and human deep-space space exploration. In 2022, the Office of Science and Technology Policy published a national strategy and an implementation plan to guide federal ISAM activities. The plan named various agencies, including the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to lead these activities. DOD and NASA have spent more than $2 billion developing in-space servicing demonstration missions over the past decade, according to agency documentation and officials. Other countries are also developing and demonstrating ISAM technologies.
Definitions of in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing
While astronauts have repaired the Hubble Space Telescope and assembled and maintained the International Space Station, robotic ISAM functions are less mature. Robotic in-space servicing is not routinely used and has only been demonstrated on a handful of missions, but it is more mature than assembly and manufacturing.
Development of ISAM technology faces challenges largely related to what experts called a chicken-and-egg problem. Potential ISAM service providers are hesitant to develop the technology into servicing products (e.g., a satellite that can bring fuel to other satellites) until there is a user base (e.g., a refuelable satellite). Similarly, potential users are hesitant to design and deploy satellites that can be serviced until those products are available.
GAO identified four challenges contributing to this situation:
GAO developed five policy options that could help address these challenges. These policy options are not recommendations. GAO presents them to help policymakers consider and choose options appropriate to the goals they hope to achieve. Policymakers may include legislative bodies, government agencies, standards-setting organizations, and industry.
Policy options to help address challenges with in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (ISAM) technology development and use
Policy Option | Opportunities | Considerations |
---|---|---|
Maintain status quo efforts (report p. 24)
|
|
|
Evaluate, and potentially promote,
|
|
|
Support technology development and
|
|
|
Develop or clarify regulations and
|
|
|
Designate a government champion (report
|
|
|
Source: GAO. | GAO-25-107555
Why GAO Did This Study
ISAM technology and capabilities could change the paradigm of how spacecraft are designed, built, operated, and discarded. Since the advent of artificial satellites, almost all have been "single use": assembled on Earth, sustained in space with no outside intervention beyond communication, and discarded or abandoned when no longer functional. ISAM could reduce cost and risk, increase flexibility, and help to better address failures after launch.
NASA and others have used ISAM capabilities for over 40 years, but largely involving crewed missions rather than uncrewed robotic missions. For example, astronauts repaired or upgraded the Hubble Space Telescope five times between 1993 and 2009.
This report describes potential benefits and status of ISAM capabilities as well as challenges facing their development and use. It also identifies options policymakers could consider that might help realize benefits and address challenges.
To conduct this technology assessment, GAO searched the relevant literature; reviewed documents and reports; interviewed federal officials, industry representatives, and stakeholders in academia and at federally funded research and development centers; conducted site visits; attended conferences and workshops; and convened a 2-day meeting of 20 experts from government, industry, academia, and federally funded research and development centers. GAO excluded sensitive and classified information. GAO is identifying policy options in this report.
For more information, contact Karen L. Howard, PhD, at HowardK@gao.gov.