Bioregenerative Life Support Systems: Efficacy Analysis of Biological Components for Space Exploration and Terrestrial Applications

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the efficacy of various biological components within Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) for long-duration space missions. Targeting researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it explores the foundational science behind plant and microbial compartments, examines methodological approaches for system integration and testing, addresses key challenges in optimization and troubleshooting, and validates component performance through comparative analysis of international programs. The synthesis of current research highlights critical gaps and future directions, offering valuable insights for both aerospace bioengineering and terrestrial biomedical applications, including closed-system therapeutics production and advanced life support technologies.

The Biological Engine of Life Support: Core Components and System Principles

The ambition for long-duration human space exploration, encompassing missions to the Moon and Mars, is inherently constrained by a trinity of challenges: logistics costs, technology limits, and human health and safety risks [1]. Relying on resupply from Earth for all consumables becomes progressively less feasible as missions extend in duration and distance. This reality has propelled the development of Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS), advanced ecosystems that use biological processes to regenerate air, water, and food from waste, thereby creating a more self-sustaining environment for crews [2]. The conceptual foundation for these systems was laid by Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS), which focused on technologically managing crop production and resource cycling [3]. This article traces the evolution from the CELSS concept to specific programs like BIO-PLEX, providing a comparative analysis of the efficacy of different biological components based on historical projects and current research. This analysis is critical, as the discontinuation of U.S. programs like BIO-PLEX has created strategic capability gaps, even as other space agencies, notably the China National Space Administration (CNSA), have advanced rapidly in this domain [1].

From CELSS to BLSS: A Conceptual and Historical Framework

The journey toward bioregenerative life support began with the concept of Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS). A CELSS is a self-supporting system, typically for space stations and colonies, that creates a regenerative environment through controlled closed ecological systems [4]. The original rationale was to move beyond simply carrying all necessary resources, which is viable for short missions but impractical for long-term settlements or generation ships [4]. The key distinction lies in the terminology: while a closed system would be totally self-reliant, recycling everything indefinitely, a controlled system still depends on some external interactions, such as periodic maintenance [4].

This concept was first pioneered by the Soviet Union in the 1950s-60s, leading to the BIOS-3 facility, where crewed experiments began in 1965 [4]. In the United States, this research evolved into the NASA Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS) program [1]. The CELSS program ultimately gave rise to the more ambitious Bioregenerative Planetary Life Support Systems Test Complex (BIO-PLEX), a habitat demonstration program designed to integrate these technologies at a larger scale [1]. However, following the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) in 2004, NASA discontinued and physically demolished the BIO-PLEX program [1].

The term Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) has since gained prominence, representing a broader, more ecosystem-based approach. While CELSS refers to a technologically controlled system mainly focused on crop production and resource management, BLSS adopts a wider ecosystem view, integrating diverse biological components into a self-regulating regenerative system [3]. These systems are designed to replicate Earth-like functions within a closed-loop framework, comprising three main compartments: biological 'producers' (e.g., plants, microalgae), 'consumers' (the crew), and 'degraders and recyclers' (e.g., bacteria and other microorganisms) [2].

Table: Major Ground-Based Demonstrators of BLSS/CELSS

Facility Name	Location	Key Focus & Contributions
BIOS-3	Russia	Early closed-system experiments; crewed testing [2].
Biosphere 2	USA	Large-scale test of a complex, closed ecological system [2] [4].
Lunar Palace 1	China	Successful demonstration of closed-system air, water, and nutrition for a crew of four for a full year [1].
NASA BIO-PLEX	USA	Planned integrated habitat demonstration; program was discontinued [1].
MELiSSA Pilot Plant	Spain	ESA program focused on testing multiple compartments of a closed-loop system [2].

Comparative Analysis of Major BLSS Programs and Their Biological Components

The efficacy of a BLSS hinges on the performance and integration of its biological components. Different international programs have pursued varying strategies, providing a rich dataset for comparison.

The NASA BIO-PLEX and the U.S. Approach

NASA's BIO-PLEX was conceived as an integrated test facility to demonstrate a regenerative life support system. Its design was predicated on using photosynthetic higher plants and algae to provide the essential functions of biomass production, air revitalization, and water purification, complemented by physicochemical processes for waste recycling [5]. Crop selection for such a system prioritized nutritional value and horticultural characteristics, with a focus on cereals, legumes, and oilseed crops to provide the major macronutrients for a vegetarian diet [5]. The cancellation of BIO-PLEX represented a significant pivot away from bioregenerative research, creating a strategic gap in U.S. capabilities [1]. Currently, NASA's approach for shorter-duration missions in low-Earth orbit relies on physical/chemical (P/C) systems and resupply, with any biological components limited to small-scale plant growth experiments, such as the "salad machine" concept for dietary supplementation [2] [6].

The CNSA Lunar Palace and Chinese Advancements

In contrast to the U.S. trajectory, the China National Space Administration (CNSA) has made significant investments in BLSS. By synthesizing discontinued NASA research and domestic innovation, CNSA developed the Beijing Lunar Palace (Lunar Palace 1) [1]. This program has achieved notable success, demonstrating closed-system operations for atmosphere, water, and nutrition while sustaining a crew of four analog taikonauts for a full year [1]. This accomplishment underscores China's current leadership in the scale and preeminence of fully integrated, closed-loop bioregenerative architectures, positioning it ahead of other official programs for lunar or Martian habitats [1].

Other International Efforts: ESA's MELiSSA

The European Space Agency's (ESA) Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative (MELiSSA) program is a focused and productive effort on BLSS component technology [1]. MELiSSA aims to design a closed-loop system providing oxygen, potable water, and fresh food by recycling organic and inorganic wastes [2]. However, unlike the Chinese program, MELiSSA has never approached closed-systems human testing, instead concentrating on fundamental research and ground-based testing of individual compartments [1].

Table: Efficacy Comparison of Key BLSS Organisms

Biological Component	Primary Functions	Examples	Efficacy & Research Notes
Staple Crops	Calorie production, Oâ‚‚ generation, COâ‚‚ absorption, water transpiration.	Wheat, Potato, Rice, Soy [2].	Essential for long-duration missions; provide carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. Require large growing areas [2].
Leafy Greens & Vegetables	Dietary supplementation (vitamins, nutraceuticals), psychological benefits.	Lettuce, Kale, Tomato, Peppers [2].	"Salad machine" concept for short-term missions; high nutritive value, minimal volume. Less contribution to overall resource recycling [2].
Insects	Protein production, waste processing, nutrient recycling.	Acheta domesticus (cricket), Tenebrio molitor (mealworm) [3].	Multifunctional potential but significantly underexamined. High conversion efficiency of organic matter to protein [3].
Microbes & Algae	Waste degradation, air/water revitalization, potential food source.	Photosynthetic bacteria, nitrifying bacteria, microalgae [2].	Critical as 'degraders and recyclers' in the ecosystem. Studied in MELiSSA; foundational for closing waste loops [2].

Experimental Protocols and Research Methodologies in BLSS

Research in BLSS relies on a combination of ground-based analog testing, mathematical modeling, and flight experiments to validate components and system integration.

Ground-Based Closed-Chamber Testing

The primary method for testing integrated BLSS has been through ground-based demonstrators. These facilities, such as Biosphere 2, Lunar Palace 1, and the MELiSSA Pilot Plant, allow researchers to conduct long-duration human-in-the-loop experiments [2]. The core protocol involves sealing a crew inside a closed environment for an extended period and meticulously monitoring all input and output flows of mass and energy. Key metrics include closure rates (the percentage of resources recycled), system stability, and crew health and psychology [2]. For example, the one-year Lunar Palace experiment demonstrated a high degree of closure for air, water, and nutrition, providing critical validation data [1].

Component-Level Efficacy Studies

A substantial body of BLSS research focuses on the performance of individual biological components under controlled and space-relevant conditions. Experimental protocols for plant studies, which dominate the literature, typically involve growing candidate species in controlled environment chambers that simulate space-cabin atmospheres, light cycles (photoperiods), and nutrient delivery systems (e.g., hydroponics or aeroponics) [2]. Measured variables include growth rate, photosynthetic efficiency, biomass production, edible yield, and nutrient content [2] [3]. For instance, lettuce and wheat are among the most studied species, with experiments often quantifying oxygen production and carbon dioxide consumption rates [3].

Literature Analysis and Knowledge Gap Identification

A 2025 review by Frontiers in Physiology employed a systematic methodology to identify research gaps. The protocol involved searching the Web of Science database for English-language papers using the terms "Bioregenerative Life Support Systems," "BLSS," "Closed Ecological Life Support Systems," or "CELSS," resulting in 1,812 papers [3]. After filtering for primary focus, 280 papers were analyzed. The metadata was extracted to categorize studies as theoretical, review, or experimental, and to record the species involved and whether species interactions were examined [3]. This methodology revealed that 79% of papers addressed plants, while animal integration was severely underrepresented, with only about one animal-focused paper published per year [3].

BLSS Research Methodology Flow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

Building and experimenting with BLSS components requires a specialized set of biological and technological tools. The following table details essential materials used in this field.

Table: Essential Research Toolkit for BLSS Experimentation

Tool/Reagent	Function in BLSS Research
Controlled Environment Chambers	Enclosed growth facilities to precisely regulate temperature, humidity, light (intensity and spectrum), and atmospheric gas composition (Oâ‚‚, COâ‚‚) for plants and insects [2].
Hydroponic/Aeroponic Systems	Soilless plant cultivation methods that deliver water and nutrients directly to roots. They allow for precise resource management and recycling in a closed system [2].
Candidate Species (Seeds, Eggs, Cultures)	The biological units of the system. Includes seeds of staple crops (wheat, potato) and leafy greens (lettuce), insect eggs (crickets, mealworms), and cultures of microalgae and nitrifying bacteria [2] [3].
Defined Growth Media & Nutrients	Standardized nutrient solutions for plants (e.g., Hoagland's solution) and feed substrates for insects. Essential for reproducible experiments and studying resource use efficiency [2].
Gas Analyzers	Instruments to monitor concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide in real-time, critical for measuring photosynthetic and respiratory activity of the biological system [2].
Water Quality Kits	Tools to test for pH, electrical conductivity, and specific contaminants in recycled water streams, ensuring water purity for both crew and organisms [6].
Zb-716	ZB716
TB500	TB500, CAS:885340-08-9, MF:C38H68N10O14, MW:889.0 g/mol

Visualizing the Core BLSS Concept and Knowledge Gaps

The fundamental principle of a BLSS is the creation of a closed-loop material flow. The following diagram illustrates the core interconnections between the crew and the biological components.

BLSS Closed-Loop Material Flow

Analysis of the current literature reveals a significant imbalance in research focus. A systematic review of 280 BLSS-focused papers shows that plant studies completely dominate the field, while animal and insect components are critically understudied.

BLSS Research Focus Disparity

The comparative analysis of BLSS from CELSS to BIO-PLEX reveals a critical juncture in human space exploration. The discontinuation of integrated U.S. programs like BIO-PLEX has created a strategic capability gap, coinciding with CNSA's demonstration of a high-functioning BLSS in the Lunar Palace [1]. The efficacy of biological components is well-established for primary producers like plants, but the system-level resilience of a full BLSS depends on greater biodiversity and understanding species interactions. Future research must urgently address the identified knowledge gaps, particularly the integration of multifunctional animal components like insects for protein production and waste recycling, and the study of all organisms under space-relevant stressors such as microgravity and radiation [3]. For the U.S. and its allies to maintain competitiveness in long-duration human space exploration and avoid strategic risk, a renewed and targeted investment in BLSS technology and testing facilities is not just advisable—it is imperative [1].

Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) are engineered ecosystems designed to sustain human life in space by replicating the core ecological functions of Earth's biosphere. These systems are structured around the fundamental principle of trophic level integration, where the functional groups of producers, consumers, and degraders are interconnected to form a closed-loop for matter and energy [2]. The efficacy of these systems hinges on the balanced interaction between these biological components, which work in concert to regenerate air, purify water, produce food, and process waste [6]. For long-duration missions beyond Earth's orbit, where resupply is infeasible, achieving a high degree of system closure—the percentage of total resources provided by recycling—is not merely an optimization goal but a critical requirement for mission success [6]. This guide objectively compares the performance of different biological components within these integrated trophic levels, providing a foundation for research and development in advanced life support.

Trophic Level Fundamentals and Ecosystem Function

In any ecosystem, including engineered BLSS, trophic levels describe the position organisms occupy in a food chain or web, dictating the flow of energy and nutrients [7] [8] [9]. The hierarchy begins with primary producers (autotrophs) at trophic level 1, which convert inorganic matter into organic biomass using an external energy source [7] [9]. Consumers (heterotrophs) occupy the subsequent levels; primary consumers (herbivores) at level 2 feed on producers, secondary consumers (carnivores/omnivores) at level 3 feed on primary consumers, and so on [7] [10]. Decomposers and detritivores form the final critical link, breaking down dead organic matter and waste from all levels into inorganic components, thereby completing the nutrient cycle [7] [9].

A core constraint on system structure is the 10% energy transfer rule, where only about 10% of the energy from one trophic level is transferred to the next, with the remainder lost primarily as metabolic heat [7] [8]. This inefficiency explains the pyramidal structure of natural ecosystems and imposes a practical limit on the number of trophic levels that can be supported in a resource-constrained BLSS [7]. Consequently, most BLSS designs purposefully minimize the number of consumer levels to reduce overall energy and mass costs.

Table: Fundamental Trophic Levels in an Ecosystem

Trophic Level	Functional Role	Example Organisms	Energy Source
1 - Producers	Convert inorganic matter to organic biomass via photosynthesis or chemosynthesis	Plants, algae, cyanobacteria [10] [11]	Sunlight or inorganic chemicals
2 - Primary Consumers	Consume producers for energy and nutrients	Herbivores (e.g., zooplankton, insects) [7] [10]	Organic matter from producers
3 - Secondary Consumers	Consume primary consumers	Carnivores/Omnivores (e.g., fish, insects) [7] [10]	Organic matter from primary consumers
4+ - Tertiary Consumers	Top predators consuming secondary consumers	Apex predators (e.g., eagles, sharks) [7] [10]	Organic matter from lower consumers
Decomposers	Recycle dead organic matter from all levels back into inorganic nutrients	Bacteria, fungi, detritivores [7] [10]	Dead biomass and waste products

Comparative Analysis of Biological Components in BLSS

The choice of biological elements for each trophic compartment involves trade-offs between mass, volume, energy requirements, crew time, and overall system robustness. The following analysis compares the primary candidates for the producer and degrader compartments, with the human crew as the central consumer.

Producer Compartment: Higher Plants vs. Microalgae

The producer compartment is the foundation of a BLSS, responsible for food production, oxygen generation, and carbon dioxide consumption [2]. Higher plants and microalgae represent the two primary alternatives.

Table: Performance Comparison of Producers in BLSS

Parameter	Higher Plants (e.g., wheat, potato, lettuce)	Microalgae (e.g., Spirulina, Chlorella)
Primary Function	Food production, air revitalization, water purification, psychological support [2]	Air revitalization, potential food supplement, water processing [2]
Edible Biomass Yield	Variable by species; staple crops (wheat, potato) provide high caloric yield [2]	High biomass yield per unit area, but primarily a supplemental food source [2]
Nutritional Value	Provides carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, and fiber; diverse diet possible [2]	High in protein and some vitamins; lacks diversity for a complete diet [2]
O2 Production & CO2 Consumption	High, directly linked to food production area [2]	Very high per unit volume [2]
Water Transpiration & Recovery	Contributes significantly to water purification via transpiration [2]	Can process water but in different pathways
Growth Cycle & Harvest Index	Longer cycles for staple crops (~100 days); requires cultivation expertise [2]	Rapid reproduction; continuous harvest possible [2]
Growth Area & Volume Requirements	Large growing area required for a full diet [2]	High volumetric efficiency [2]
System Complexity & Crew Time	Higher; requires planting, maintenance, and harvesting [2]	Can be highly automated in bioreactors [2]
Non-Nutritional Benefits	Significant psychological benefits from gardening ("horticultural therapy") [2]	Limited psychological benefit

Supporting Experimental Data: Ground-based demonstrators have tested these compartments extensively. For instance, the Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative (MELiSSA) program includes both higher plant (e.g., in the PaCMan facility) and microalgae compartments in its pilot plant [2]. Experiments for short-duration missions often focus on "salad machines" with fast-growing leafy greens (e.g., lettuce, kale) and dwarf cultivars, which provide high nutritive value with minimal volume and energy inputs [2]. For long-duration planetary outposts, experiments include staple crops like wheat, potato, and rice to provide the carbohydrates, proteins, and fats for a basic diet [2]. The data show that a hybrid approach is often most feasible, using microalgae for efficient air revitalization and higher plants for diverse food production and psychological benefits.

Degrader Compartment: Microbial Communities

The degrader compartment is essential for recycling waste streams (e.g., inedible plant biomass, human fecal and urinary waste) into forms usable by producers [2]. Microbial communities, typically bacteria and fungi, are the workhorses of this compartment.

Performance Summary: Microbial degraders in bioreactors are highly efficient at mineralizing organic waste into inorganic nutrients (e.g., nitrates, phosphates) that can be fed back to the plant compartment [2]. Their performance is measured by conversion efficiency, speed, and resilience. The key advantage is their ability to process complex waste streams that physicochemical systems find challenging. The MELiSSA loop is a canonical example, employing a series of interconnected bioreactors with defined microbial populations to progressively break down waste and recover resources [2]. The main challenge is controlling the microbial ecology to ensure stability and prevent the accumulation of harmful byproducts.

The Consumer: Human Trophic Level and Metabolic Data

The human crew is the central consumer in the BLSS food web. Understanding human metabolic needs is fundamental to sizing the producer and degrader compartments.

Table: Average Daily Metabolic Resource Requirements per Crewmember [6]

Resource	Requirement	Waste Output	Requirement
Oxygen (Metabolic)	0.636 - 1.0 kg	Carbon Dioxide	~1.0 kg (estimated)
Food (dry mass)	0.5 - 0.863 kg	Urine & Feces	Mass balanced with input
Potable Water	2.27 - 3.63 kg	Wastewater (Hygiene)	1.36 - 9.0 kg

The global average Human Trophic Level (HTL) has been calculated at approximately 2.21, similar to anchoveta, indicating an omnivorous diet with a mix of plant and animal products [12]. This HTL has been increasing over time with global trends toward higher meat consumption [12]. However, in a BLSS, the high energy and mass cost of supporting animal trophic levels makes them largely prohibitive. Therefore, BLSS designs typically assume a plant-based diet (de facto HTL of 2.0) for the crew to maximize system efficiency and minimize the required cultivation area [2].

Experimental Protocols for Trophic Integration

Validating the integration of trophic levels requires controlled experiments in ground-based closed-system demonstrators. The following protocol outlines a standard methodology.

Objective: To evaluate the stability, productivity, and closure of a BLSS with integrated producer, consumer, and degrader compartments over a defined mission period.

Key Experimental Facilities: Research is conducted in specialized closed-environment facilities. Notable examples include the MELiSSA Pilot Plant (MPP), the Closed Ecology Experiment Facility (CEEF) in Japan, Lunar Palace 1 in China, and the NASA Lunar-Mars Life Support System Test Project facilities [2].

Methodology:

• System Initialization: The closed habitat is sealed with a defined initial mass of resources (air, water, nutrients). The biological compartments (plant growth chambers, microbial bioreactors) are activated.
• Crew Inclusion: A human crew enters the facility for the duration of the experiment. All resource inputs and outputs for the crew are meticulously monitored.
• Process Monitoring:
  • Atmosphere: Continuous monitoring of Oâ‚‚ and COâ‚‚ partial pressures. The rate of Oâ‚‚ production by plants/algae and COâ‚‚ removal is calculated.
  • Water: All water used by the crew (hygiene, drinking, urination) is collected. The efficiency of water recovery systems (e.g., condensate from air, urine processing by degraders) is measured. The purity of recycled water is verified.
  • Biomass: All plant food grown, harvested, and consumed is weighed and its nutritional content analyzed. Inedible plant biomass is directed to the degrader compartment.
  • Waste Processing: The efficiency of microbial degraders in breaking down solid and liquid waste is tracked, measuring the conversion rate back to usable nutrients for the plants.
• Data Collection and Performance Metrics:
  • Closure Percentage: The percentage of oxygen, water, and food that is recycled versus resupplied [6].
  • Mass Balance: A full accounting of all mass flows into, out of, and within the system.
  • Energy Flow: Tracking of energy inputs (light for producers, power for degraders) and the efficiency of energy transfer between trophic levels.
  • System Stability: Monitoring the health of biological components and the dynamic equilibrium of gas and nutrient concentrations.

BLSS Trophic Integration

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Research and development in BLSS rely on specific biological agents and technological systems.

Table: Essential Research Materials for BLSS Experimentation

Research Material / Solution	Function in BLSS Research
Staple Crop Cultivars (e.g., dwarf wheat, potato)	Primary producers for caloric and nutritional needs in long-duration mission simulations [2].
Leafy Greens (e.g., lettuce, kale)	Fast-growing producers for short-cycle experiments, providing vitamins and psychological benefits [2].
Cyanobacteria (e.g., Spirulina)	Photosynthetic microorganism for O2 production, CO2 removal, and as a protein supplement [2].
Defined Microbial Consortia	Engineered communities of nitrifying and fermentative bacteria for predictable waste recycling in bioreactors [2].
Hydroponic/Aeroponic Nutrient Solutions	Precisely controlled delivery of inorganic macronutrients (N, P, K) and micronutrients to plant roots [2].
Solid Waste Simulants	Chemically and physically defined analogs of human metabolic waste for safe and reproducible testing of degrader systems.
Gas Analysis Sensors (O2, CO2)	Real-time monitoring of atmospheric composition to assess the balance between producer and consumer compartments [6].
(5S,5'S)-Dihydroxy Lysinonorleucine	(5S,5'S)-Dihydroxy Lysinonorleucine, CAS:32619-23-1, MF:C12H25N3O6, MW:307.34 g/mol
Umber

The comparative analysis of biological components within BLSS reveals that no single solution exists for all mission scenarios. The optimal configuration is a function of mission duration, destination, and acceptable risk. Short-duration missions benefit from simpler, less-closed systems relying on higher plants for dietary supplementation and psychological support, while long-duration planetary outposts necessitate highly integrated, closed-loop systems incorporating both higher plants and microbes for full resource recovery [2]. The experimental data from ground-based demonstrators consistently show that the integration of trophic levels is technically feasible but operationally challenging, requiring sophisticated control and monitoring to maintain stability.

Future research must focus on closing the food loop completely and optimizing the system for the unique constraints of space, including microgravity, increased radiation, and variable gravity on the Moon and Mars [2]. The translation of this research not only promises to enable humanity's future beyond Earth but also provides innovative solutions for resource management and sustainable closed-loop systems on our home planet.

In the context of life support systems research, the integration of biological components is pivotal for sustaining long-duration space missions and improving closed-loop environmental control on Earth. Among these components, higher plants stand out as multifunctional organisms capable of addressing several critical needs simultaneously. This guide objectively compares the efficacy of higher plants against other biological alternatives, such as microalgae and hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria, focusing on their roles in nutrition, air revitalization, and psychological support. The analysis is framed within the broader thesis of optimizing biological life support systems (BLSS) for maximum efficiency, reliability, and crew well-being, supported by experimental data and defined protocols.

The Multifunctional Role of Higher Plants in BLSS

Higher plants are the cornerstone of Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS), which are closed ecosystems designed to sustain human life by recycling resources. In these systems, plants act as "producers," performing essential functions through their natural physiological processes [2]. They are not merely food sources but integrated systems that contribute to the closure of mass and energy loops by consuming carbon dioxide, producing oxygen, purifying water through transpiration, and aiding in waste recycling [2]. The concept of BLSS, also known as Closed Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS), has been tested in large-scale ground-based demonstrators such as BIOS-3 (Russia), Biosphere 2 (USA), the Closed Ecology Experiment Facility (Japan), and Lunar Palace 1 (China) [2] [13].

The value of higher plants becomes particularly evident when compared to other biological systems over mission duration. A comparative study of BLSS types found that systems based on higher plants become the most mass-efficient for missions longer than one year, especially when waste incineration is incorporated [14]. Furthermore, when evaluated on integrated criteria of minimum mass, maximum safety, and quality of life, BLSS with higher plants demonstrated superior reliability and comfort for scenarios such as a lunar base [14]. This positions them as the most viable option for long-duration missions and planetary outposts.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Biological Components in Life Support Systems

Biological Component	Primary Functions	Key Advantages	Key Limitations	Ideal Mission Scenario
Higher Plants [2] [14]	Food production, Oâ‚‚ production, COâ‚‚ removal, water transpiration, waste recycling, psychological support	High-quality food output, multifunctionality, positive psychological impact, high reliability for long missions	Larger growing area required, longer growth cycles for some crops, higher initial mass	Long-duration missions (>1 year), planetary outposts (Moon, Mars)
Microalgae [2] [14]	Oâ‚‚ production, COâ‚‚ removal, potential food source	Very high Oâ‚‚ production per unit area, small volume requirement, fast growth	Lower acceptability as a primary food source, less diverse output, requires sophisticated processing	Short-duration missions, specific gas regeneration tasks
Hydrogen-Oxidizing Bacteria [14]	Air revitalization, potential food production from waste	Can produce edible biomass from COâ‚‚ and hydrogen, compact system	Limited to air and food functions, lower technology readiness for full diet, less natural interaction	Specialized applications within a hybrid BLSS

Nutritional and Functional Food Production

Comparative Efficacy of Crop Types

The choice of plant species is critical and is guided by mission parameters such as duration, available volume, and power constraints. Plants are uniquely capable of biotransformation, converting inorganic wastes into nutritious food, a process not feasible with physicochemical systems [2]. This is vital because prepackaged space food loses nutrients over time; for instance, Vitamin C and B1 can degrade to inadequate concentrations within three years [2].

Crops are selected based on nutritional value, resource requirements (water, nutrients, light), edible-to-waste biomass ratio, and horticultural needs [2]. The following table compares different plant-based food production systems for space.

Table 2: Comparison of Plant-Based Food Production Systems for Space

Crop Type	Example Species	Production Cycle	Key Nutritional Benefits	Resource & Integration Notes
Staple Crops [2]	Wheat, potato, rice, soy	Long (~100 days)	Provides carbohydrates, proteins, and fats for a basic diet	Requires large growing area; substantial contribution to resource recycling
Salad Crops [2]	Lettuce, kale, tomato, peppers	Medium to Long	Provides vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients; enhances diet palatability	High harvest index (~90%); easy to cultivate; low ethylene production
Microgreens [15]	Brassicaceae (e.g., red cabbage), Asteraceae, Amaranthceae	Short (1–3 weeks)	Higher concentrations of phytonutrients (ascorbic acid, β-carotene, α-tocopherol) and minerals than mature leaves	Very low energy demand; can be grown on static substrates with minimal nutrients; high harvest frequency

Experimental Protocol: Assessing Nutritional Quality of Microgreens

Objective: To determine the concentration of key bioactive compounds (e.g., ascorbic acid, β-carotene, and minerals) in various microgreen species compared to their mature-leaf counterparts [15].

Methodology:

• Plant Material and Growth: Multiple species (e.g., red cabbage, cilantro, amaranth) are grown in controlled environment chambers. Seeds are sown on synthetic fibrous media at densities of 1-4 seeds/cm², depending on species. Growth conditions are maintained at a photon flux of ≤300 μmol m⁻² s⁻¹ using Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs), with a controlled photoperiod and temperature [15].
• Harvesting: Microgreens are harvested at soil level when cotyledons are fully expanded and the first pair of true leaves has emerged (typically 1-3 weeks post-germination). Mature plants of the same species are harvested at standard maturity [15].
• Sample Preparation: Edible portions from both groups are freeze-dried and homogenized.
• Chemical Analysis:
  • Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C): Analyzed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).
  • Carotenoids (β-carotene, Lutein): Extracted with solvents and quantified using HPLC.
  • Mineral Content (Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn): Determined using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) after microwave-assisted acid digestion.
• Data Analysis: Concentrations of bioactive compounds and minerals are calculated on a dry weight basis. Statistical analysis (e.g., ANOVA) is performed to identify significant differences between microgreens and mature leaves.

Air Revitalization and Environmental Control

Comparative Analysis of Air Revitalization Systems

Air revitalization involves the removal of carbon dioxide (COâ‚‚) and the production of oxygen (Oâ‚‚). While physicochemical systems exist, biological systems offer a regenerative approach. In BLSS, plants consume COâ‚‚ and produce Oâ‚‚ through photosynthesis [2] [13]. The efficacy of this process depends on the plant species and its growth stage.

The following diagram illustrates the role of higher plants within a simplified BLSS, highlighting their multifunctional contributions to air, water, and food cycles.

Diagram 1: Higher Plants in a Bioregenerative Life Support System

Table 3: Comparison of Air Revitalization Technologies

Technology	Principle	Oâ‚‚ Production / COâ‚‚ Removal Source	Advantages	Disadvantages
Higher Plants [2] [13]	Photosynthesis	Biological (crew food & non-edible biomass)	Multifunctional (produces food, recycles water), regenerative	Requires significant volume, light, and crew time, slower response
Microalgae [2]	Photosynthesis	Biological (algae biomass)	High volumetric efficiency, very fast growth	Primarily single-function, biomass may be less palatable
Electrolyzer (Physicochemical) [13]	Electrolysis of Hâ‚‚O	Chemical (water)	High output, compact, precise control	Not regenerative for food, consumes water reservoir

Experimental Protocol: Measuring Photosynthetic Gas Exchange

Objective: To quantify the Oâ‚‚ production and COâ‚‚ consumption rates of different plant species under controlled environment conditions relevant to space habitats [2].

Methodology:

• Plant Growth Chambers: Plants are grown in a sealed, environmentally controlled chamber (e.g., a Plant Characterization Unit - PaCMan). Variables such as light intensity (using energy-efficient LEDs), photoperiod, temperature, humidity, and COâ‚‚ concentration are precisely monitored and controlled [2].
• Gas Concentration Monitoring: Infrared gas analyzers (IRGAs) are used to continuously measure the concentration of COâ‚‚ within the chamber. Oxygen sensors (e.g., zirconia or electrochemical sensors) are used to monitor Oâ‚‚ levels.
• Data Collection: The rates of COâ‚‚ drawdown and Oâ‚‚ evolution are measured over a 24-hour period to capture net photosynthesis during the light period and net respiration during the dark period.
• Calculation: The net photosynthetic rate (μmol COâ‚‚ m⁻² s⁻¹) and Oâ‚‚ production rate (μmol Oâ‚‚ m⁻² s⁻¹) are calculated based on the change in gas concentrations, the volume of the chamber, and the leaf area or planted surface area of the crops.

Psychological and Cognitive Benefits

Quantitative Evidence of Psychological Effects

Beyond physical sustenance, higher plants provide critical psychological benefits, which is a unique advantage over other biological or physicochemical systems. Visual contact with plants can significantly reduce stress and enhance cognitive performance. A systematic review with meta-analyses concluded that indoor plants can significantly benefit diastolic blood pressure and academic achievement, while also positively affecting brain activity and attention, though not always significantly [16].

A controlled study measuring physiological and psychological effects of visual stimulation with different plant types found that real plants induced greater physiological relaxation than artificial plants, photographs, or no plants. This was evidenced by increased relative theta power in the occipital lobes and reduced relative high beta power, indicating lower stress and anxiety [17]. Participants also reported significantly higher feelings of "comfort," "natural," and "relaxed" when viewing real plants [17].

Table 4: Comparison of Psychological Impact Interventions in Isolated Environments

Intervention Type	Reported Psychological Benefits	Key Supporting Evidence	Integration Notes in Confined Habitats
Higher Plants (Real) [16] [17] [18]	Stress reduction, improved mood, enhanced comfort, relaxation, reduced anxiety, cognitive restoration	Significant reduction in diastolic BP; improved academic scores; positive changes in EEG brain waves; subjective reports of comfort and relaxation [16] [17]	Requires space and maintenance; provides dual nutritional/psychological value; "horticultural therapy" activities possible [2]
Simulated Nature (Photos, VR) [17]	Some positive psychological effects	Lesser physiological and psychological impact compared to real plants [17]	Low mass and volume; no maintenance; easy to implement but less effective
No Planned Intervention	N/A	Studies show that environmental stress in isolated, artificial environments can increase fatigue and stress [17]	N/A

Experimental Protocol: EEG Measurement of Psychological Relaxation

Objective: To assess the physiological relaxation effect of visual stimulation with real plants by measuring brain wave activity [17].

Methodology:

• Participants: A cohort of subjects (e.g., n=30) is recruited, ensuring they are right-handed and free from specific diseases to control for confounding variables.
• Experimental Setup: A quiet room with controlled light and temperature. Participants sit in a chair, and a wireless dry electroencephalography (EEG) device is fitted according to the International 10–20 Electrode Placement System. Electrodes are placed on the left earlobe (reference), and on the left and right occipital lobes (O1, O2), which are involved in vision [17].
• Stimuli and Procedure: Using a crossover design, participants are exposed to four different visual stimuli for 5 minutes each in a randomized order: a real plant (e.g., Epipremnum aureum in a pot), an artificial plant, a life-size photograph of the same plant, and a control with no plants (only soil). Before each stimulus, participants view a white screen for 1 minute to reset visual adaptation [17].
• Data Acquisition: Brain waves are measured throughout the 5-minute viewing period for each treatment. Participants are instructed not to move or speak.
• Data Analysis: The power spectra of specific brain waves are analyzed, particularly the relative theta (RT) power spectrum (associated with relaxed states) and the relative high beta (RHB) power spectrum (associated with stress, anxiety, and high alertness). A subjective evaluation of emotions is also conducted after each trial using standardized questionnaires like the Profile of Mood States (POMS) and the Semantic Differential Method (SDM) [17].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

This section details essential materials and reagents used in the experimental protocols cited in this guide, providing a resource for researchers aiming to replicate or build upon these studies.

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for BLSS Experimentation

Item Name	Function / Application	Example Use Case	Key Considerations
Controlled Environment Chamber (e.g., PaCMan) [2]	Precisely controls light, temperature, humidity, and gas composition for plant growth experiments.	Fundamental for measuring plant photosynthetic gas exchange and growth under standardized or space-analog conditions.	Requires integration of sensors for Oâ‚‚, COâ‚‚, temperature, and humidity. LED lighting is preferred for energy efficiency and spectral control.
Light-Emitting Diodes (LEDs) [15]	Provides specific light wavelengths and intensities for plant photosynthesis and morphological control.	Used to optimize growth and enhance phytochemical content in crops like microgreens while minimizing power consumption.	Ability to modulate spectral quality (e.g., red, blue, green ratios) is crucial for experimenting with plant responses.
Wireless Dry Electroencephalography (EEG) [17]	Measures electrical activity in the brain (brain waves) non-invasively to assess psychological states.	Quantifying the physiological relaxation response in subjects viewing real plants versus other stimuli.	Dry electrode systems are faster to set up and more versatile than wet systems. Focus on occipital lobe (O1, O2) channels for visual stimuli studies.
Infrared Gas Analyzer (IRGA)	Precisely measures the concentration of carbon dioxide (COâ‚‚) in a gas stream.	Core component for quantifying net photosynthetic rates in plant growth chambers by monitoring COâ‚‚ drawdown.	Requires calibration with standard gases. Integration with a data logging system is necessary for continuous measurement.
Hydroponic/Synthetic Fibrous Media [15]	A soil-less substrate for plant growth, often used with nutrient solutions.	Cultivating microgreens and other crops in BLSS; allows for recycling of transpired water and simplifies nutrient delivery.	Should be inert and sterile. The choice of media affects root zone oxygen and water retention.
Profile of Mood States (POMS) Questionnaire [17]	A standardized psychological self-rating scale to assess transient mood states.	Subjectively evaluating changes in tension, depression, anger, fatigue, confusion, and vigor after interaction with plants.	Provides a quantitative score (Total Mood Disturbance) for statistical comparison between experimental treatments.
BU 72	BU 72, CAS:173265-76-4, MF:C28H32N2O2, MW:428.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
ER176	ER176, CAS:1373887-29-6, MF:C20H20ClN3O, MW:353.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrates that higher plants are exceptionally multifunctional components within biological life support systems. While alternatives like microalgae may excel in specific, narrow metrics such as volumetric oxygen production, higher plants offer an unparalleled combination of nutritional output, air and water revitalization, and documented psychological benefits. Their efficacy is maximized in long-duration missions where their reliability, contribution to life support closure, and role in maintaining crew mental health become indispensable. Future research should continue to optimize crop selections, growth systems, and integration protocols to fully realize the potential of higher plants in enabling sustainable exploration and habitation beyond Earth.

The development of Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) is pivotal for extending human presence in space beyond the temporal and mass constraints of current vehicle capabilities [19] [20]. For missions targeting a continuous presence on the Moon or Mars, the resupply of fundamental resources—food, air, and fuel—from Earth becomes prohibitively costly and logistically challenging [6]. Microbial systems based on cyanobacteria and algae present a promising technological solution by performing in situ resource utilization (ISRU), converting local regolith and crew waste into vital resources [19]. These organisms are capable of revitalizing atmosphere, purifying water, and generating nutritional biomass and biofuel, thereby increasing system closure and reducing dependence on Earth-based resupply [5] [6]. This guide objectively compares the efficacy of various cyanobacteria and algal species as biological components within these systems, focusing on their documented performance in nutritional provision and resource acquisition.

Performance Comparison of Cyanobacteria and Algal Strains

The efficacy of cyanobacteria and algae varies significantly depending on the target function, whether it is bioweathering regolith, producing nutritional biomass, or facilitating water treatment. The tables below summarize experimental data for key strains and their performance in these distinct roles.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Siderophilic Cyanobacteria for Regolith Bioweathering (Stage 1 ISRU)

Strain Name	Function	Key Metabolite	Efficiency / Result	Experimental Context
Leptolyngbya JSC-12 [19]	Bioweathering	2-ketoglutaric acid	High intrinsic bioweathering capability; growth stimulated by regolith analogs	Laboratory demonstration on lunar and Martian regolith analogs [19]
Leptolyngbya JSC-1 [19]	Bioweathering	Organic acids	PSI:PSII ratio of 4:1, indicating high effectiveness in iron-replete environments	Comparison with non-siderophilic strain Synechococcus sp. PCC 7002 [19]
Siderophilic Community [19]	Mineral Liberation	Multiple organic acids	24x more efficient than traditional agriculture for producing desirable compounds	Laboratory-scale modular factory concept [19]

Table 2: Nutritional and Resource Recovery Performance of Algal and Cyanobacterial Strains (Stage 2 BLSS)

Strain / Consortium	Primary Application	Key Performance Metrics	Experimental Protocol
Spirulina (implied) [19]	Human Nutrition	Rich in proteins, lipids, carbohydrates; can supplement food stores	Cultivation using compounds from Stage 1 regolith processing, solar radiation, and crew COâ‚‚ [19]
Consortium: Desmonostoc sp. (cyanobacteria) & Tetradesmus obliquus (green algae) [21]	Wastewater Treatment	Nitrogen removal: 89.3 ± 0.5%; sCOD removal: 91.2 ± 1.6%; Phosphate removal: 72.8 ± 2.1% [21]	Semi-continuous 5L bubble column photobioreactor; HRT of 30 days; undiluted liquid digestate from vegetable waste [21]
Consortium: Tetradesmus obliquus, Desmodesmus subspicatus, Microglena sp. [21]	Wastewater Treatment	High nutrient and organic pollutant removal from liquid digestate	Small-scale laboratory installation; pre-treatment such as dilution or sterilization was not applied [21]
Eukaryotic Microalgae & Cyanobacteria [22]	Soil Health & Agriculture	Improves soil structure, aggregate stability, and total organic carbon/nitrogen content	Inoculation into different soil types (silt loam, sandy loam, etc.); formation of biocrusts over 90 days [22]

Experimental Protocols for Key Applications

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear basis for comparison, this section details the methodologies from cited experiments that demonstrated high efficacy in resource recovery and biomass production.

Protocol for Nutrient Removal from Wastewater Using a Algal-Cyanobacterial Consortium

This protocol is adapted from the treatment of undiluted liquid anaerobic digestate in a photobioreactor, demonstrating high removal rates for nitrogen and organic contaminants [21].

• 1. Photobioreactor Setup: A glass bubble column photobioreactor with a 5 L working volume is used. The system is equipped with continuous stirring at 150 rpm, LED lamps providing a 14-hour light/10-hour dark cycle at an intensity of 3500 Lux, and an air membrane pump delivering air at a flow rate of 0.2 L/L/min [21].
• 2. Inoculation and Acclimation: The bioreactor is initially filled with 3N-Bold Basal Medium (3N-BBM) and inoculated with a mixed microalgae consortium (e.g., Microglena sp., Tetradesmus obliquus, Desmodesmus subspicatus) at a density of 1.0 × 10⁴ cells/mL. The consortium is cultivated in batch mode for 30 days to increase biomass concentration [21].
• 3. Semi-Continuous Operation with Waste Stream: After the acclimation period, the reactor is switched to semi-continuous feeding mode. Once daily, 167 mL of treated medium is withdrawn from the reactor, and an equal volume of fresh, non-sterilized liquid digestate (or target wastewater) is introduced. This maintains a Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) of 30 days. The Solid Retention Time (SRT) is equal to the HRT as biomass is not recycled [21].
• 4. Monitoring and Analysis: The treatment efficiency is monitored during steady-state operation. Key parameters measured weekly in the effluent include:
  • Total Suspended Solids (TSS), turbidity, and optical density (OD) for biomass.
  • Chlorophyll a concentration as a proxy for photosynthetic health.
  • Nutrient concentrations: Ammonium nitrogen (NH₄⁺), nitrates (NO₃⁻), nitrites (NO₂⁻), and orthophosphates (PO₄³⁻) are determined after filtration.
  • Organic load: Soluble Chemical Oxygen Demand (sCOD) after filtration.
  • Removal efficiency (R%) is calculated as: ( R = (c1 - c2) \times 100 / c1 ), where ( c1 ) is the concentration in the influent and ( c_2 ) is the concentration in the effluent [21].

Protocol for Bioweathering of Regolith Using Siderophilic Cyanobacteria

This protocol is based on laboratory experiments demonstrating the liberation of essential elements from lunar and Martian regolith analogs [19].

• 1. Strain Selection and Cultivation: A siderophilic (iron-loving) cyanobacterial strain with proven bioweathering capability, such as Leptolyngbya JSC-12 or JSC-1, is selected. The strain is pre-cultured in an appropriate medium [19].
• 2. Exposure to Regolith Analog: The cyanobacteria are introduced to a medium containing sterile, crushed lunar or Martian regolith analog. The analog should contain all target elements (Fe, Mg, Ca, etc.) in their native, non-soluble forms [19].
• 3. Bioweathering Process: The culture is incubated under controlled light and temperature conditions suitable for cyanobacterial growth. During incubation, the organisms secrete a combination of organic acids (e.g., 2-ketoglutaric acid) that act as chelators, dissolving the regolith and transitioning elements into the liquid phase [19] [20].
• 4. Monitoring and Harvest: The success of bioweathering is evaluated by:
  • Monitoring cyanobacterial growth to confirm stimulation by the regolith.
  • Analyzing the production of specific organic acids in the culture medium.
  • Measuring the concentration of liberated elements (e.g., dissolved iron) in the liquid phase using techniques like inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The resulting liquid medium, enriched with bioavailable minerals, can then be used as a substrate for a Stage 2 nutritional photoreactor [19].

Metabolic Pathways and System Workflows

The core functionality of these microbial systems relies on specific biological pathways and integrated workflows. The diagrams below visualize these critical processes.

Diagram 1: Terpenoid Biosynthesis Pathways. This diagram contrasts the different metabolic pathways for producing terpenoid/isoprenoid precursors in eukaryotic algae and cyanobacteria, leading to compounds with applications in biofuel and photoprotection [23].

Diagram 2: Three-Stage Bioreactor Workflow. This diagram outlines the logical flow and interdependence of the proposed three-reactor system for closed-loop life support, from in-situ resource utilization to the production of food, oxygen, and fuel [19] [20].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful experimentation and implementation of cyanobacteria and algae in BLSS requires a specific set of reagents, materials, and analytical tools. The following table details key items and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for BLSS Microbial Research

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Specific Examples / Notes
BG-11 Medium [24]	Standardized cultivation medium for cyanobacteria and algae.	Used for maintaining and growing axenic cultures of strains like Microcystis aeruginosa and Anabaena variabilis prior to experiments [24].
Zarrouk's Medium [19]	Invented medium designed for optimal growth of specific cyanobacteria like Spirulina.	Composition can be replicated using elements liberated from regolith by Stage 1 bioreactors [19].
Lunar/Martian Regolith Analog [19]	Terrestrial simulant for bioweathering and ISRU experiments.	Crushed basalt-rich material containing essential but non-soluble minerals and metals [19].
Liquid Anaerobic Digestate [21]	Complex wastewater simulant for testing nutrient removal and system resilience.	Sourced from organic waste; used undiluted and non-sterilized to challenge consortium robustness [21].
Bubble Column Photobioreactor [21]	Controlled environment for cultivating photosynthetic microorganisms and testing gas/liquid exchange.	Typically glass, with controlled lighting, temperature, stirring, and aeration; essential for process scaling [21].
Spectrophotometer with Hach Tests [21]	For quantifying key water quality and nutrient parameters.	Enables measurement of COD (sCOD, tCOD), nitrogen species (NH₄⁺, NO₃⁻, NO₂⁻), and orthophosphates (PO₄³⁻) [21].
UCB-J	UCB-J, CAS:1604786-87-9, MF:C17H15F3N2O, MW:320.32	Chemical Reagent
FSP-2	FSP-2, MF:C19H28F6NO5PS, MW:527.46 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The comparative data and methodologies presented herein demonstrate that specialized cyanobacteria and algae are highly effective for specific functions within a BLSS. Siderophilic cyanobacteria like the JSC strains are unmatched for the primary bioweathering of regolith, while consortia dominated by green algae and non-siderophilic cyanobacteria show remarkable efficiency in simultaneous wastewater treatment and biomass production. The choice of organism is therefore highly application-dependent. Future research should focus on integrating these discrete stages into a robust, continuously operating closed-loop system, optimizing the flow of materials and energy between them to achieve the high degree of self-sufficiency required for long-duration human exploration beyond Earth.

Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) represent a critical technology for long-duration human space exploration, aiming to create sustainable artificial ecosystems that regenerate oxygen, water, and food while processing waste [25]. These systems, also known as Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS), mimic Earth's ecological principles by integrating producers (plants, algae), consumers (humans), and decomposers (microorganisms) into a closed-loop system [25] [2]. The historical development of these systems has followed distinctly different paths between the United States and China, with NASA pioneering early research that was subsequently discontinued, while China's space program systematically advanced and implemented these technologies in their Lunar Palace project [26]. This analysis examines the efficacy of different biological components in life support systems research within the broader geopolitical context of space exploration, comparing technical approaches, experimental results, and strategic directions between these two space programs.

Historical Development and Geopolitical Context

NASA's Pioneering Efforts and Strategic Redirection

NASA's investment in bioregenerative life support began with the Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS) program in the 1980s, which evolved into the Bioregenerative Planetary Life Support Systems Test Complex (BIO-PLEX) initiative [26]. This ambitious program aimed to develop integrated biological systems for planetary bases, with significant research conducted at Kennedy Space Center's Breadboard Project [27]. The CELSS program recognized the economic imperative of regenerative systems, noting that delivery costs to the Moon reached approximately $30,000 per pound, making resupply-intensive approaches prohibitively expensive for long-duration missions [27]. Research during this period yielded valuable insights into system optimization, including the finding that using multiple small crops overlapping in time could reduce system mass by up to 6% compared to single large crops [27]. Surprisingly, NASA's analyses revealed that manpower costs represented the most significant resource requirement in CELSS operations, challenging previous assumptions that focused primarily on energy optimization [27].

Despite these technical advances, NASA's strategic direction shifted dramatically following the 2004 Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), which led to the discontinuation and physical demolition of the BIO-PLEX habitat demonstration program [26]. This decision reflected a renewed emphasis on physical/chemical-based Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) and resupply-dependent approaches rather than biologically-based regeneration systems [26]. The cancellation of these programs created a significant capability gap in U.S. bioregenerative life support technology that would subsequently be exploited by international competitors.

China's Strategic Adoption and Advancement

As NASA divested from BLSS research, China's space program systematically acquired and advanced these technologies through the Lunar Palace (Yuegong) project [26]. Chinese researchers synthesized knowledge from discontinued NASA programs with other international efforts and domestic innovation to develop their bioregenerative life support capabilities [26]. The Lunar Palace 1 facility, developed under the leadership of Liu Hong at the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (BUAA), became China's first BLSS and the third such system globally [28]. This 500m³ self-contained laboratory occupies 160m² and consists of an integrated living module and two plant cultivation modules [28] [29]. The core innovation of Lunar Palace 1 is its implementation of a closed-loop ecosystem where plants produce oxygen and food, while crew waste is composted and recycled for plant cultivation [28].

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Major BLSS Programs

Program	Lead Nation/Agency	Key Facilities	Primary Focus	Current Status
CELSS/BIO-PLEX	USA/NASA	KSC Breadboard Facility, BIO-PLEX	Development of integrated biological life support	Discontinued in 2004 [26]
Lunar Palace	China/CNSA	Lunar Palace 1 (500m³ facility)	Closed ecosystem with higher plants, animals, microorganisms	Operational with successful long-duration missions [28] [30]
MELiSSA	Europe/ESA	MELiSSA Pilot Plant (MPP)	Component technology development	Ongoing but no human testing [26]
BIOS-3	USSR/Russia	BIOS-3 facility in Krasnoyarsk	Closed ecosystem research	Historical research base [30]
CEEF	Japan	Closed Ecology Experiment Facilities	Ecological system testing	Operational for research [30]

China's strategic commitment to BLSS technology reflects its broader ambitions for sustained human presence beyond low-Earth orbit. The success of the Lunar Palace project has positioned China as the current leader in bioregenerative life support research, with capabilities exceeding those of other international programs [26]. This technological advantage has significant implications for the geopolitical landscape of space exploration, particularly as both NASA and the China National Space Administration (CNSA) have announced plans for long-duration lunar habitation [26].

Technical Comparison of Biological System Components

Plant Cultivation Systems and Crop Selection

The selection of appropriate plant species represents a fundamental consideration in BLSS design, with different mission scenarios requiring distinct approaches to crop cultivation. For short-duration missions, programs have focused on fast-growing species that provide high nutritional value with minimal resource requirements, including leafy greens (lettuce, kale), microgreens, and dwarf cultivars of horticultural crops [2]. These "salad machine" concepts primarily supplement astronaut diets with fresh produce rich in nutraceuticals and antioxidants to counter space-induced physiological stresses [2].

For long-duration missions and planetary outposts, staple crops become essential for providing adequate calories and macronutrients. Lunar Palace 1 successfully cultivated five cereals (wheat, corn, soybeans, peanuts, lentils), 15 vegetables (carrots, cucumbers, water spinach), and one fruit (strawberries) [28]. The wheat provided the primary caloric source and served as the main oxygen generator, while soybeans and peanuts contributed essential proteins and fats [28]. This diverse selection ensured nutritional adequacy while providing psychological benefits through dietary variety.

Table 2: Crop Selection and Functional Efficacy in BLSS

Crop Type	Specific Species/Varieties	Primary Function	Mission Applicability	Efficacy Data
Cereals	Wheat, corn, rice	Calorie source, Oâ‚‚ production, waste processing	Long-duration, planetary bases	Wheat provided main calories & Oâ‚‚ in Lunar Palace [28]
Legumes	Soybeans, peanuts, lentils	Protein source, nitrogen fixation	Long-duration, planetary bases	55% of food produced internally in Lunar Palace [28]
Leafy Greens	Lettuce, kale, water spinach	Micronutrients, psychological benefits	Short-duration, orbital stations	Fast-growing, high nutraceutical content [2]
Fruits	Strawberries, tomatoes	Micronutrients, psychological benefits	All missions	Strawberries successfully grown in Lunar Palace [28]
Vegetables	Carrots, cucumbers	Dietary variety, micronutrients	All missions	15 vegetables grown in Lunar Palace [28]

Animal Protein Production: Insect Components

A particularly innovative aspect of Lunar Palace 1's biological system was the incorporation of the yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor L.) as a primary protein source [28]. This approach addressed the challenge of providing adequate animal protein without the substantial resource requirements of traditional livestock. The mealworms, composed of 75% protein, were chosen based on United Nations recommendations advocating insects as efficient food sources for malnourished populations [28]. The mealworms demonstrated excellent resource utilization efficiency by consuming leftover and inedible plant parts, thus contributing to waste recycling while producing high-quality protein for crew consumption [28].

The inclusion of mealworms created four distinct biological loops within Lunar Palace 1 (higher plants, animals, microorganisms, and humans), representing a more comprehensive ecosystem approach than previous BLSS designs [30]. This multi-trophic system more closely mimicked natural ecosystems and demonstrated potentially higher stability and efficiency than plant-only systems.

Microbial Processing Components

Microbial components serve essential functions in BLSS as decomposers and recyclers of organic waste streams. Lunar Palace 1 implemented a biofermentation process to treat human waste, food residues, and inedible plant biomass [29]. This microbial processing converted waste into fertilizers for plant cultivation, closing the nutrient cycle and minimizing external inputs. The system achieved a remarkable 98% material closure during the 370-day experiment, demonstrating high efficiency in resource recycling [30].

Other international programs have developed complementary microbial technologies. The European Space Agency's MELiSSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative) program has focused specifically on microbial components for waste recycling and resource recovery [26] [30]. Similarly, NASA's earlier CELSS research investigated microbial bioprocessing for converting inedible plant biomass into reusable resources [27]. These microbial systems represent essential enabling technologies for maintaining stable closed ecosystems over extended durations.

Experimental Protocols and Mission Data

Lunar Palace 1 Mission Profiles

China's Lunar Palace program has conducted two landmark missions that provide substantial experimental data on BLSS efficacy:

2014 - 105-Day Mission: The initial Lunar Palace 1 mission involved three volunteers (one male, two females) who completed a 105-day sealed test from February 3 to May 20, 2014 [28]. During this mission, the crew subsisted on a diet incorporating mealworms as the primary protein source, with 55% of total food produced internally through the BLSS [28]. The system successfully maintained oxygen balance through plant photosynthesis and recycled water through internal processes [28].

2017-2018 - 370-Day Mission: This extended mission involved two teams of four volunteers who remained in isolation for 370 days, from May 10, 2017, to May 15, 2018 [30]. This represents the longest BLSS experiment conducted to date and included the first successful artificial closed ecosystem with four complete biological loops (higher plants, animals, microorganisms, and humans) [30]. The mission achieved a material closure rate of 98.2%, with waste recovery rates of 67% for solids and 99% for fluids [30].

System Reliability Assessment Protocol

A critical component of the 370-day Lunar Palace 1 mission was the systematic assessment of system reliability through detailed failure monitoring and analysis. Researchers employed a rigorous experimental protocol:

• Data Collection: Precisely recorded the number and timing of failures for each system component throughout the 370-day mission [30]
• Component Monitoring: Tracked nine key system units: Temperature and Humidity Control Unit (THCU), Water Treatment Unit (WTU), LED Light Source Unit (LLSU), Solid Waste Treatment and Yellow Mealworm Feeding Unit (SWT-YMFU), two plant cabins (PC1, PC2), Plant Cultivation Substrate Unit (PCSU), Mineral Element Supply Unit (MESU), and Atmosphere Management Unit (AMU) [30]
• Analysis Method: Applied Monte Carlo simulations based on empirical failure data to estimate system reliability and lifetime [30]
• Statistical Modeling: Used failure number probability distribution functions for each unit to determine their impact on overall system reliability [30]

Table 3: Reliability Performance of Lunar Palace 1 System Components

System Component	Failure Frequency (λ, d⁻¹)	Impact on Overall System Failure	Primary Failure Causes
Temperature & Humidity Control Unit (THCU)	0.0108 [30]	High	Component aging, mechanical wear [30]
Water Treatment Unit (WTU)	Not specified	High	Component aging, mechanical wear [30]
LED Light Source Unit (LLSU)	Not specified	Moderate	Not specified
Solid Waste Treatment/Yellow Mealworm Unit (SWT-YMFU)	0.0108 [30]	Not specified	Not specified
Mineral Element Supply Unit (MESU)	Not specified	Moderate	Not specified
Atmosphere Management Unit (AMU)	Not specified	Moderate	Not specified
Overall System	Mean Lifetime: 52.4 years [30]	N/A	N/A

This reliability analysis yielded the first quantitative lifetime estimation for a BLSS, determining a mean lifespan of 52.4 years (19,112 days) with a 95% confidence interval between 47.58 and 56.67 years [30]. The results identified the Temperature and Humidity Control Unit and Water Treatment Unit as having the highest failure probability and greatest impact on overall system failure, providing crucial data for future system optimization [30].

Research Reagents and Essential Materials

The development and operation of advanced BLSS facilities requires specialized research reagents and materials to maintain closed ecosystems. The following table details key components used in these systems:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for BLSS Experimentation

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Example	Efficacy Evidence
Lunar/Martian Soil Simulants	Plant growth substrate	Bioweathering improvement for wheat cultivation [31]	Improved seedling length in simulant-treated soils [31]
Plant Probiotics	Enhance plant growth & stress resistance	Plant growth promotion in confined systems [25]	Improved plant health and productivity [25]
Growth-Promoting Nanoparticles	Enhance plant growth	Carrying activator proteins to plants [25]	Experimental stage, potential for yield improvement [25]
Hydroponic Nutrient Solutions	Mineral nutrition for plants	Plant cultivation without soil [25]	Standard practice in CEA systems [25]
Specific Microorganism Strains	Waste processing & nutrient recycling	Microbial bioprocessing of inedible biomass [27]	Essential for nutrient recovery in closed systems [27]
Cyanobacteria	Carbonate precipitation & nitrogen fixation	Soil formation & nutrient cycling [30]	Potential for regenerative resource cycling [30]
Yellow Mealworms (Tenebrio molitor L.)	Animal protein production	Conversion of inedible plant biomass to protein [28]	75% protein content, efficient biomass conversion [28]

Visualization of System Architectures and Historical Transitions

BLSS Functional Architecture Diagram

This diagram illustrates the fundamental architecture of Bioregenerative Life Support Systems, showing the circular resource flows between producers (plants, algae), consumers (humans, animals), and decomposers (microorganisms). The system requires only energy input while recycling oxygen, water, food, and nutrients in a closed loop, with waste heat as the primary output.

Historical Development Timeline

This timeline visualization depicts the historical transition of BLSS leadership from the United States to China, highlighting NASA's early research, program discontinuation in 2004, and China's subsequent advancement through the Lunar Palace program with progressively ambitious missions.

The comparative analysis of NASA's CELSS and China's Lunar Palace programs reveals distinct approaches to biological life support system development with varying levels of efficacy. NASA's early research established crucial theoretical foundations and identified key optimization principles, such as the advantages of multiple small crops and the significant manpower requirements of these systems [27]. However, the strategic decision to discontinue the BIO-PLEX program in 2004 halted progress toward integrated system demonstration [26].

China's Lunar Palace program has demonstrated superior efficacy in implementing functional closed ecosystems through systematic long-duration testing. The 370-day mission established new benchmarks for BLSS performance, achieving 98% material closure and providing quantitative reliability data unavailable from other programs [30]. The successful integration of four biological loops (plants, animals, microorganisms, and humans) represents a significant advancement in ecosystem complexity and functionality [30].

Future BLSS development will require addressing critical knowledge gaps regarding space environmental effects on biological systems, particularly the impacts of reduced gravity, increased radiation, and closed environment stressors [25] [2]. The geopolitical dimension of this competition remains significant, with China currently holding leadership in bioregenerative life support capabilities essential for sustained human presence beyond low-Earth orbit [26]. As lunar exploration programs advance, BLSS technologies will play an increasingly decisive role in determining which nations can maintain permanent human presence on the Moon and eventually Mars.

From Laboratory to Implementation: Testing Frameworks and Mission-Specific Applications

Ground-based analog facilities are indispensable platforms for advancing the development of Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS), which are critical for long-duration human space exploration. These closed artificial ecosystems integrate biological components—such as higher plants, microorganisms, and sometimes animals—with physical-chemical systems to regenerate oxygen and water while producing food and processing waste. By simulating the conditions of space habitats here on Earth, researchers can study the complex dynamics of closed ecosystems, validate system reliability, and investigate the physiological and psychological effects of isolation and confinement on human crews. The research conducted within these analogs provides vital data that informs the design of life support systems for lunar bases, Mars missions, and beyond, while also contributing to our understanding of sustainability on Earth.

This guide provides a comparative analysis of four major analog facilities: the historical BIOS-3 from Russia, the expansive Biosphere 2 from the United States, China's integrative Lunar Palace 1, and the European consortium's MELiSSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative). Each system embodies a distinct philosophical and engineering approach to creating a functional BLSS, with varying emphases on biological diversity, technological control, and system closure. By examining their experimental protocols, performance data, and research outcomes, this article aims to illuminate the efficacy of different biological components and system architectures in life support research, offering a resource for scientists, engineers, and researchers in the field.

The following table provides a systematic comparison of the four major ground-based analog facilities, highlighting their key characteristics, biological components, and research focus.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Major BLSS Analog Facilities

Facility	Location	Key Biological Components	Closure & Scale	Primary Research Focus
BIOS-3 [30]	Russia	Chlorella microalgae, higher plants	Fully closed; 3.14 m³ per occupant (total m³)	Gas exchange (O₂ production, CO₂ absorption), food production, system closure
Biosphere 2 [32] [33]	Arizona, USA	Diverse multi-biome ecosystem: rainforest, ocean, mangrove, savanna, desert, agricultural system	Sealed glass complex; ~7,200,000 ft² (total)	Ecosystem dynamics, agricultural production, human psychology and physiology in isolation
Lunar Palace 1 [30]	China	Higher plants (5 crops, 29 vegetables, 1 fruit), yellow mealworms, microorganisms	Material closure: 98.2%; 500 m³ (total)	System reliability, waste recycling (solid: 67%, fluid: 99%), long-duration operation
MELiSSA [30]	Europe (Multi-site)	Compartmentalized bioreactors: photoheterotrophic bacteria, nitrifying bacteria, higher plants	Loop-based system; Pilot Plant scale	Waste processing efficiency, microbial ecology, compartmentalization and control

Detailed Analysis of Facilities and Experimental Protocols

BIOS-3

The BIOS-3 facility, developed in Russia during the 1970s, was a pioneering effort in creating a fully closed ecological system. Its primary biological components were Chlorella microalgae, which served as the main agent for air revitalization through photosynthesis, and a suite of higher plants for food production. The facility was designed to support a crew of three for extended periods, with its most notable mission exceeding 100 days in duration [30]. The fundamental experimental approach in BIOS-3 revolved around achieving a high level of closure for atmospheric gases and water, with the system demonstrating robust gas exchange capabilities where the algae and plants provided oxygen and absorbed carbon dioxide.

The experimental protocol typically involved sealing the crew inside the facility and monitoring the dynamics of the closed system. Key measured variables included oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations, crop yield and nutritional value, and the overall health parameters of the crew. A significant contribution of BIOS-3 research was the development of initial guidelines for the quantitative assessment of BLSS reliability, though these were largely based on design concepts rather than long-term operational failure data [30]. The facility proved that closed-loop air and water revitalization using biological components was technically feasible, providing a foundational model for all subsequent BLSS research.

Biosphere 2

Biosphere 2 represents the most ambitious attempt to create a complex, multi-biome closed ecological system. Its design philosophy was based on replicating the resilience and functional redundancy of Earth's biosphere (Biosphere 1) on a miniature scale. The facility housed seven distinct biomes under its sealed glass structure: a rainforest, an ocean with a coral reef, mangrove wetlands, a savannah grassland, a fog desert, and two anthropogenic biomes—an agricultural system and a human habitat [32]. This vast interior space was populated by thousands of species of plants, animals, and microorganisms, creating an unprecedented experimental platform for studying ecosystem dynamics.

Table 2: Biosphere 2 Biome Composition and Function

Biome	Area (m²)	Primary Ecological Function	Relevance to BLSS
Rainforest	1,900	Oxygen production, carbon sequestration, water cycling	Study of complex plant-based gas exchange
Ocean with Coral Reef	850	Carbonate chemistry buffering, biodiversity reservoir	Analog for aquatic closure and system stability
Agricultural System	2,500	Food production for crew	Test bed for intensive, sustainable farming
Human Habitat	N/A	Living quarters, laboratories	Study of human impact on closed environment

The two primary missions, from 1991-1993 and in 1994, yielded critical lessons for BLSS design. During the first mission, the system experienced an unplanned drop in atmospheric oxygen, which was later attributed to unexpected microbial activity in the soil consuming oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide [32]. This event highlighted the critical importance of understanding non-linear microbial processes and atmospheric chemistry in a closed system. Conversely, the second mission in 1994 successfully achieved total self-sufficiency in food production and oxygen [32], demonstrating the potential of a well-managed bioregenerative system. The Biosphere 2 agriculture system served as a test bed for intensive, sustainable, non-polluting farming, though the crew experienced a calorie-restricted, nutrient-dense diet that led to positive health markers such as lowered blood glucose and cholesterol, providing unique data on human nutrition in a closed environment [33].

Lunar Palace 1

China's Lunar Palace 1 (LP1) is a ground-based integrative experimental facility that successfully conducted the world's longest BLSS experiment to date, lasting 370 days with a crew of four volunteers [30]. Unlike Biosphere 2's biome-based approach, LP1 is engineered around a highly integrated system with distinct functional units. Its biological components include five staple food crops, 29 different vegetables, one fruit, and yellow mealworms, which were cultivated and processed to provide the majority of the crew's diet. A key innovation in LP1 is the inclusion of yellow mealworms, which represent an animal component for protein production and contribute to the system's material loop by consuming inedible plant biomass.

The experimental protocol for the 370-day mission focused on quantifying system reliability and failure rates across its nine core technical units, including the Temperature and Humidity Control Unit (THCU), Water Treatment Unit (WTU), and Solid Waste Treatment and Yellow Mealworm Feeding Unit (SWT-YMFU) [30]. Researchers meticulously recorded the number and timing of failures for each unit. For example, the SWT-YMFU unit failed four times during the mission [30]. This precise time-series failure data allowed for the first cogent quantitative estimation of BLSS reliability and lifetime using statistical methods and Monte Carlo simulations. The analysis revealed that the average lifespan of the LP1 system was estimated to be approximately 52.4 years, with the THCU and WTU having the greatest impact on overall system failure probability [30]. This data-driven approach to reliability marks a significant advancement in BLSS engineering.

MELiSSA

The MELiSSA (Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative) project, led by the European Space Agency, adopts a fundamentally different philosophy compared to the other analogs. Instead of emulating a natural ecosystem, MELiSSA is designed as a highly controlled, compartmentalized loop of bioreactors. Each compartment is populated by specific strains of microorganisms (e.g., photoheterotrophic bacteria, nitrifying bacteria) and higher plants, each with a dedicated function in the process of waste recycling, water purification, and food production [30]. The goal is to achieve a thorough understanding and precise control of each step in the ecological chain, from the degradation of waste to the production of oxygen, water, and food.

The core experimental workflow for MELiSSA involves operating the pilot plant (MPP) to demonstrate the integration of these compartments and their long-term stability [30]. Research focuses on optimizing the efficiency of each individual compartment and managing the flows of mass and energy between them. This includes studying the kinetics of waste degradation by specific bacterial strains, the efficiency of nutrient recovery, and the growth performance of the plant compartment. The MELiSSA loop's logical flow can be visualized as a series of interconnected processes, which can be represented by the following diagram.

Diagram: MELiSSA's Compartmentalized Loop Concept

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

The operation and study of Bioregenerative Life Support Systems rely on a suite of essential materials and reagents that facilitate biological processes and enable system monitoring.

Table 3: Essential Research Materials and Reagents in BLSS Experiments

Item/Reagent	Function in BLSS Research
Chlorella vulgaris	Unicellular green algae used in photosynthetic gas exchange for oxygen production and carbon dioxide absorption. A key component in BIOS-3 and a candidate for MELiSSA compartments [30].
Higher Plant Cultivars	Selected crops (e.g., wheat, potato, lettuce) for food production, water transpiration, and supplemental oxygen generation. Core to all featured facilities [30] [33].
Nitrifying Bacteria	Microorganisms that convert ammonia into nitrates, a form usable by plants. Crucial for waste processing and nutrient recycling in closed systems like MELiSSA [30].
Controlled Release Fertilizers	Source of essential mineral nutrients (N, P, K, etc.) for plant growth within the closed substrate, forming part of the elemental cycling loop [30].
Yellow Mealworms	Insect species used as a bioconverter to consume inedible plant biomass and produce animal protein for crew nutrition, as implemented in Lunar Palace 1 [30].
Gas Chromatography System	Analytical instrument for precise monitoring of atmospheric composition (Oâ‚‚, COâ‚‚, Nâ‚‚, trace gases) to ensure crew safety and study gas exchange dynamics [32] [30].
ML390	ML390|DHODH Inhibitor|For Research Use Only
PFI-3	PFI-3, MF:C19H19N3O2, MW:321.37

The comparative analysis of BIOS-3, Biosphere 2, Lunar Palace 1, and MELiSSA reveals that the efficacy of biological components in a BLSS is profoundly influenced by the overarching system architecture. Microalgae and higher plants consistently form the backbone of primary production and gas exchange across all systems. However, the complexity of supporting biological elements varies dramatically, from the highly controlled, single-strain microbial compartments of MELiSSA to the complex, multi-species ecological networks of Biosphere 2 and the integrated animal-plant loops of Lunar Palace 1.

Key trade-offs emerge between ecological complexity and engineering controllability. Biosphere 2 demonstrated that while ecological redundancy can confer resilience, it also introduces non-linear, unpredictable dynamics that are difficult to manage. In contrast, the compartmentalized MELiSSA loop aims for maximum predictability and control at the potential cost of system-level resilience found in more diverse ecosystems. Lunar Palace 1 has contributed critical quantitative reliability data, highlighting that the longevity of a BLSS depends not only on its biological stability but also on the reliability of its physical-chemical support systems, such as temperature and humidity control. The future of BLSS research lies in integrating the lessons learned from all these approaches—designing systems that are biologically robust, data-rich, and engineered for long-term reliability to safely support human life in deep space.

The selection of biological components for space missions is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor. The mission duration profoundly influences the optimal biological system architecture, creating a fundamental divergence between short-duration and long-duration mission profiles. For short-duration missions, biological systems typically function in open-loop configurations where all required resources are provided from storage and waste materials are stored for disposal [6]. In contrast, long-duration missions increasingly rely on closed-loop life support systems that process waste products to recover useful resources, thus reducing dependence on resupply [6]. This comparison guide examines the efficacy of different biological components across these mission profiles, providing researchers with experimental data and methodological frameworks for mission-driven biological selection.

The critical parameter distinguishing these approaches is system closure, defined as the percentage of total required resources provided by recycling [6]. While short-duration missions may operate effectively with minimal closure, long-duration missions beyond the International Space Station (ISS)—including lunar and Mars bases—require increasingly closed systems to address the logistical burden and operational costs of resupply [6]. Biological systems offer unique advantages for closure, particularly through photosynthetic higher plants and algae that can simultaneously revitalize atmosphere, purify water, and generate food [5].

Comparative Analysis of Mission Profiles

Defining Characteristics and System Architectures

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Short-Duration vs. Long-Duration Biological Systems

Parameter	Short-Duration Missions	Long-Duration Missions
Mission Duration	Days to months	Months to years (e.g., Mars missions: 30+ months) [34]
System Closure	0% to minimal closure [6]	High closure required (approaching 100% ideally) [6]
Resource Strategy	Open-loop: resources from storage, waste stored [6]	Closed-loop: waste processing and resource recovery [6]
Biological Components	Limited biological components; primarily physical/chemical systems [6]	Extensive integration of bioregenerative processes with P/C systems [6] [5]
Technology Readiness	High TRL (Space Shuttle, ISS heritage) [6]	Low to moderate TRL; requires further development [6]
Metabolic Resupply	Full resupply of oxygen, food, water [6]	Initial supply with recycling to minimize resupply [6]

The architectural divergence between mission profiles stems from fundamental trade-offs between resupply mass and recycling system mass. As mission duration increases, the logistical burden of conventional open-loop systems becomes prohibitive [6]. The current ISS design represents an intermediate state—mostly open-loop but with water processing as a notable exception [6]. For long-duration missions beyond Earth orbit, increased system closure, automatic control, and improved reliability become critical design drivers [6].

Efficacy Metrics and Performance Data

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Biological Systems Across Mission Durations

Performance Metric	Short-Duration Profile	Long-Duration Profile	Experimental Basis
Atmosphere Revitalization	COâ‚‚ concentration and venting [6]	COâ‚‚ reduction to Oâ‚‚ via water electrolysis [6]	ISS system operations
Water Recovery	Limited processing (condensate only) [6]	Extensive processing (urine, hygiene water to potable) [6]	ISS Water Recovery System
Food Production	None (full resupply) [6]	Bioregenerative with higher plants [5]	CELSS research [5]
Waste Management	Storage and disposal [6]	Processing for resource recovery [6]	ALS development programs
Metabolic Support	Stored resources: Oâ‚‚ (0.636-1 kg/crew/day), food (0.5-0.863 kg/crew/day), water (2.27-3.63 kg/crew/day) [6]	Recycled resources with make-up for inefficiencies [6]	Metabolic values for spacecraft operation

The transition toward closed-loop systems faces technological hurdles, particularly because recycling costs increase dramatically as closure approaches 100% [6]. Different recycling technologies become more "expensive" as processing requirements intensify: water recovery requires impurity removal, oxygen recovery from carbon dioxide requires oxidative processes, and food loop closure requires photosynthesis [6]. The trade-off between mass savings from reduced resupply and the additional mass, power, volume, and thermal load requirements imposed by recovery systems must be carefully evaluated for each mission profile [6].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Terrestrial Simulation Studies for Affective Health

Experimental Objective: To investigate the impact of long-duration mission conditions on crew affective health and evaluate countermeasures for emotional disorders [34].

Methodology Overview:

• Search Strategy: Systematic literature review following PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases [34]
• Key Search Terms: "emotional health," "adaptation," "affect," "stress," "mood," "emotion responses," "space," "long duration space exploration," "space analogs" [34]
• Inclusion Criteria:
  • Works defining affective/emotional health and health-affect relationships
  • Studies examining affects in adaptation to extreme environments and space analogs
  • Research on emotional countermeasures for space missions [34]
• Analysis Framework: Examination of stress, coping, adaptation, and resilience as interconnected affective states affected by spaceflight [34]

Experimental Validation: Terrestrial simulations in analog environments have revealed that during orbital spaceflight, the Earth "out of sight" phenomenon, communication delays (over 20 minutes one-way for Mars), and strong isolation feelings can negatively affect astronauts' bodies and minds, producing feelings of dullness and nostalgia that put affective health at risk [34].

Transcriptomic Analysis for Molecular Adaptation Studies

Experimental Objective: To compare short-term stress responses with long-term adaptive evolutionary patterns in biological systems relevant to space environments [35].

Methodology Overview:

• Cell Culture Models: Great tit embryonic fibroblasts (GEF) and mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEF) as representative subjects [35]
• Stress Stimuli: Exposure to simulated high-altitude environmental stresses including:
  • Cold exposure (4°C) over 1 and 4 hours
  • Hypoxia stress (3% Oâ‚‚) for 4, 24 hours
  • UV radiation exposure (100 J/m²) [35]
• Transcriptomic Analysis:
  • RNA sequencing of stimulated cells
  • WGCNA (Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis) to identify gene modules
  • Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) for functional pathway identification [35]
  • CLOVER tool for identifying statistically overrepresented protein motifs [35]

Key Findings: Metabolic pathways were the most significantly associated with altered gene expression after high-altitude stimuli exposure in both bird and mouse cells, with 11 genes overlapping between species [35]. This suggests common paths to molecular adaptation that may inform biological system design for space environments.

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

Diagram 1: Molecular Adaptation Pathway showing transition from short-term stress response to long-term adaptation. Research reveals that short-term stress and long-term adaptations share common metabolic pathways, with phenotypic plasticity potentially promoting adaptive evolution [35].

Research Reagent Solutions for Biological System Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Space Biological System Experiments

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Experimental Context
Great Tit Embryonic Fibroblasts (GEF)	Model system for transcriptomic analysis of stress responses [35]	Molecular adaptation studies
Mouse Embryonic Fibroblasts (MEF)	Mammalian model for comparative genomic analysis [35]	Cross-species adaptation mechanisms
International Affective Picture System (IAPS)	Standardized visual emotional stimuli for affective health research [34]	Terrestrial simulation studies
Chieti Affective Action Videos	Database of videotaped emotional stimuli [34]	Affective response measurement
RNA Sequencing Kits	Transcriptomic profiling of stress responses [35]	Gene expression analysis
Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis (WGCNA)	Statistical method for identifying gene modules [35]	Transcriptomic data analysis
CLOVER Tool	Identification of overrepresented protein motifs [35]	Cis-element analysis

The selection of biological components for space missions must be driven by mission duration requirements, with distinct architectures optimal for short-duration versus long-duration profiles. Short-duration missions benefit from simpler, open-loop systems with high technology readiness levels, while long-duration missions require increasingly closed-loop systems that integrate biological and physicochemical processes [6]. The experimental evidence indicates that biological systems show remarkable adaptability to extreme environments through both short-term plastic responses and long-term adaptive changes [35].

For researchers developing biological systems for space applications, the critical insight is that mission duration dictates fundamental architectural decisions. The transition from open-loop to closed-loop systems represents not merely a technical challenge but a paradigm shift in how biological components are selected, integrated, and optimized. Future research should focus on improving closure efficiency while managing the exponential cost increases near 100% closure, with biological processes offering particular promise for sustainable long-duration life support [6] [5].

The future of long-duration spaceflight missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) necessitates a paradigm shift from reliance on resupply from Earth to self-sustaining, closed-loop ecosystems [36]. Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) represent this fundamental shift, aiming to regenerate oxygen, water, and food for astronauts by recycling waste materials through biological processes [37]. The efficacy of different biological components—ranging from microorganisms to higher plants—is therefore a central research focus in designing these systems. Among the most promising concepts is an integrated three-reactor system that leverages the unique capabilities of cyanobacteria and other microbes to process in-situ resources like regolith into vital life support commodities [36]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of this system's components, evaluating their performance against alternative biological and physicochemical technologies. The objective is to furnish researchers and scientists with a data-driven overview of a potentially transformative architecture for human space exploration.

The proposed three-reactor system is designed for planetary outposts, such as those on the Moon or Mars, and operates in a sequential manner to transform raw, local materials into life-sustaining products [36]. The system's innovation lies in its use of biologically-based processing to create a regenerative loop, reducing the need for consumables from Earth.

The system's architecture consists of three distinct but interconnected stages:

• Stage 1: Regolith Processing Bioreactor: This stage utilizes siderophilic (iron-loving) cyanobacteria to perform "bioweathering" of lunar or Martian regolith. The microorganisms break down the rocky material, freeing up inorganic elements and creating organic compounds that can be used to support growth in subsequent stages [36].
• Stage 2: Nutritional and Atmospheric Photobioreactor: In this stage, a photobioreactor (PBR) cultivates selected species of cyanobacteria. These organisms perform photosynthesis, using carbon dioxide and water to produce oxygen for crew respiration and accumulate biomass. This biomass is rich in proteins, vitamins, and minerals, making it suitable for direct human consumption or as a nutritional supplement [36] [38].
• Stage 3: Biofuel Synthesis Bioreactor: The final stage is dedicated to biofuel production, particularly methane (CHâ‚„), to power equipment such as the Descent/Ascent Vehicle (DAV). This bioreactor converts the biomass produced in Stage 2 into a usable propellant, closing the loop on in-situ resource utilization for fuel [36].

For a clear visual understanding of how these stages interconnect and contribute to a closed-loop life support system, see the system architecture diagram below.

System Architecture of the Three-Reactor BLSS This diagram illustrates the flow of materials and the primary functions of each reactor stage in the proposed BLSS, from processing raw regolith to producing oxygen, food, and fuel.

Comparative Framework for BLSS Technologies

To objectively evaluate the three-reactor system, it is essential to compare its performance and characteristics against other established biological components and traditional physicochemical systems. The following analysis will use these comparator technologies:

• Soil-Like Substrate (SLS) Bioreactors: These systems use earthworms and bacterial microflora to compost inedible plant biomass into a soil-like medium for sustainable crop cultivation [39]. They represent an alternative biological approach to waste recycling and food production.
• Higher Plant Habitats (e.g., the NASA Biomass Production Chamber): These are closed greenhouses for growing crops, providing food, oxygen, and water recycling [38].
• Physicochemical (PC) Systems (e.g., ISS Life Support): These are the current state-of-the-art on the International Space Station, which use machines and chemical processes for air and water revitalization [38].

Performance Data and Comparative Analysis

Quantitative System Performance Comparison

The table below summarizes key performance metrics for the three-reactor system and its alternatives, based on data from ground-based experiments and operational systems.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Life Support System Components

System / Component	O2 Production (kg/day/crew)	CO2 Removal (kg/day/crew)	Food Production	Closure Degree	Key Outputs
3-Stage Cyanobacteria System	0.89 (per astronaut) [36]	1.08 (per astronaut) [36]	High-protein biomass	Not specified	Oâ‚‚, food, methane fuel
SLS Bioreactor	Not specified	Not specified	Wheat, beans, cucumber, radish	72% [39]	Recycled soil, food crops
Higher Plant Habitats	Demonstrated for 1 crew [38]	Demonstrated for 1 crew [38]	Various crops	Not specified	Oâ‚‚, food, water recycling
ISS Physicochemical	0.82 (per crew member) [38]	1.04 (per crew member) [38]	None (all imported)	Not applicable	Oâ‚‚, recycled water

Analysis of Comparative Efficacy

The data reveals distinct advantages and trade-offs for each biological component:

• The Three-Reactor System's Versatility: Its primary strength is multi-functionality. Unlike SLS or higher plants focused on food and air, the three-stage system adds biofuel production to its outputs, addressing a critical need for mission sustainability beyond life support [36]. The use of extremophilic cyanobacteria also suggests a high resilience to the harsh conditions of space and planetary surfaces.
• SLS Bioreactors and Nutrient Recycling: SLS technology excels in closing the waste loop, efficiently converting over 80% of BLSS waste (inedible plant biomass) back into a fertile growth medium. This increases the overall system closure degree from 66% to 72%, a significant improvement for long-duration missions [39].
• Higher Plant Habitats for Crew Well-being: Systems like the NASA Biomass Production Chamber provide a diverse and palatable diet, which is crucial for crew morale and health on long-duration missions. They also contribute to water recycling and air revitalization, creating a more familiar Earth-like environment [38].
• Comparison to Physicochemical Systems: Current ISS systems are reliable but non-regenerative in terms of food and fuel. They require consumables and produce waste (e.g., vented methane), making them unsuitable for long-duration missions without resupply [38]. The three-reactor system aims to overcome this fundamental limitation.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol for Three-Reactor System Operation

The experimental validation of the integrated three-reactor system involves a sequence of controlled biological processes. The following workflow outlines the key stages from regolith processing to final product synthesis.

Three-Reactor System Experimental Workflow This diagram outlines the sequential experimental protocol for operating the integrated three-reactor system, from initial regolith processing to the production of food and fuel.

Detailed Methodology:

• Stage 1: Regolith Bioweathering: Martian or Lunar regolith simulant is crushed and placed into a sealed bioreactor. The reactor is inoculated with a defined culture of siderophilic cyanobacteria (e.g., species from genera like Anabaena or Nostoc) and a nutrient medium. The culture is incubated under controlled temperature and lighting conditions for a predefined period (e.g., 14-30 days). The success of bioweathering is measured by analyzing the leachate for concentrations of liberated essential elements like phosphorus, potassium, iron, and sulfur [36].

• Stage 2: Biomass and Oxygen Production: The effluent from Stage 1, rich in soluble nutrients, is transferred to a photobioreactor (PBR). The PBR is inoculated with a fast-growing, high-yield strain of cyanobacteria (e.g., Spirulina or Chlorella for microalgae). The culture is continuously illuminated and supplied with a controlled stream of COâ‚‚-enriched air (simulating crew respiration). Oxygen production is measured in real-time using an oxygen sensor, and growth is monitored by optical density. Biomass is continuously or batch-harvested by centrifugation [36] [38].

• Stage 3: Methanogenesis: A portion of the harvested cyanobacterial biomass is transferred to a third, anaerobic bioreactor. This reactor contains a consortium of methanogenic archaea. The process parameters (pH, temperature, stirring) are optimized for methane production. The gas output is quantified using gas chromatography, and the methane purity is analyzed [36].

Protocol for SLS Bioreactor Operation

As a key comparator, the experimental protocol for a Soil-Like Substrate (SLS) bioreactor involves:

• Waste Preparation: Inedible plant biomass (e.g., wheat straw) is shredded and mixed with a small amount of initial substrate.
• Inoculation and Composting: The mixture is inoculated with earthworms (e.g., Eisenia fetida) and a diverse bacterial microflora. The reactor is maintained at optimal moisture and temperature.
• Monitoring and Harvest: The maturation of the waste into SLS is monitored by tracking the decomposition of organic matter and the formation of stable coprolites. The resulting SLS is used to cultivate new crops (e.g., wheat, radish), and plant growth metrics are recorded [39].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

The experimental research into BLSS components relies on a suite of specialized biological and engineering materials. The following table details essential items and their functions in this field of study.

Table 2: Essential Research Toolkit for BLSS Experiments

Tool/Reagent	Function in BLSS Research	Example Organisms / Specifications
Cyanobacteria Strains	Primary producers for Oâ‚‚, biomass, and regolith processing.	Spirulina (nutrition), Anabaena (nitrogen fixation), siderophilic strains (bioweathering) [36] [40].
Photobioreactor (PBR)	Controlled environment for cultivating photosynthetic microbes.	Includes lighting, COâ‚‚ injection, gas exchange, and temperature control systems [38].
Regolith Simulant	Geologically accurate analog for Lunar/Martian soil for experimentation.	JSC-1A (Lunar), MGS-1 (Mars), used in Stage 1 testing [36].
Methanogenic Archaea	Anaerobic microorganisms that convert biomass into methane fuel.	Used in Stage 3 bioreactors for biofuel synthesis [36].
SLS Invertebrates	Drivers of decomposition and soil formation in SLS bioreactors.	Earthworms (Eisenia fetida) process plant waste into fertile substrate [39].
Analytical Instruments	For monitoring system performance and output quality.	Gas Chromatograph (for CHâ‚„ analysis), Oxygen Sensor, Spectrophotometer (for microbial growth) [36] [39].
MS453	MS453|Covalent SETD8 Inhibitor|For Research Use	MS453 is a potent, selective covalent SETD8 inhibitor. It is for research use only and not for human or veterinary diagnosis or therapeutic use.
ACSF	ACSF, MF:C20H20N2O2, MW:320.38	Chemical Reagent

The comparative analysis indicates that no single biological component is superior in all aspects; rather, their efficacy is highly dependent on the mission profile and required functions. The three-reactor cyanobacteria-based system presents a compelling, multi-output solution for missions where the in-situ production of food, oxygen, and methane fuel is a critical requirement. Its potential for high resilience and integration with local resources makes it a strong candidate for pioneering Mars or Lunar bases.

In contrast, SLS bioreactors offer a robust method for achieving a high degree of material closure by recycling organic waste, making them an excellent subsystem for sustaining crop production within a larger BLSS. Higher plant habitats remain indispensable for providing dietary variety and psychological benefits to the crew.

The primary challenge for all BLSS research, including the three-reactor concept, is the transition from ground-based testing to the space environment. The impact of microgravity and space radiation on these complex biological processes remains a major unknown [37] [38]. Future research must prioritize space-based experiments, initially as small-scale payloads, to validate ground-derived models and refine system parameters. Such steps are essential to move these promising biological components from theoretical concepts to operational systems that will enable humanity's long-term future in space.

A primary challenge in establishing a long-term human presence on the Moon or Mars is the immense cost and logistical difficulty of transporting all necessary resources from Earth [20] [19]. Biological Life Support Systems (BLSS) are proposed as a sustainable solution, aiming to regenerate food, oxygen, and water by using biological processes [41]. A critical function within a BLSS is the utilization of local resources, known as In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU).

This guide focuses on the efficacy of using siderophilic (iron-loving) cyanobacteria as biological agents for the essential first step of a BLSS: liberating minerals and gases from extraterrestrial regolith [20] [19]. We will objectively compare the performance of key cyanobacterial strains, detail the experimental protocols used to evaluate them, and situate their role within the broader context of life support system research.

Performance Comparison of Siderophilic Cyanobacteria

The performance of cyanobacteria in bioweathering is typically evaluated by their ability to dissolve regolith analogs and release essential elements. The following table summarizes experimental data for leading siderophilic candidates.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Siderophilic Cyanobacteria in Bioweathering

Strain Name	Key Characteristic	Experimental Substrate	Key Metabolic Outputs & Efficiency	Performance Advantage / Rationale
Leptolyngbya sp. JSC-1 [20] [42]	Siderophilic, filamentous	Iron-depleted media; Martian/Lunar regolith analogs	Demonstrates a high PSI:PSII ratio (~4:1) under iron-replete conditions [20]. Expresses five different IsiA-family genes (e.g., transcript levels increase 250-540 fold) under Fe starvation, forming supercomplexes for light harvesting [42].	Superior acclimation to fluctuating iron availability, a key trait for processing iron-rich Martian regolith. Maintains photosynthetic efficiency in harsh conditions.
Leptolyngbya sp. JSC-12 [20] [43]	Siderophilic, thermophilic	Lunar and Martian regolith analogs	Exhibits higher intrinsic bioweathering capability than other tested strains. Stimulates production of 2-ketoglutaric acid, an organic acid that chelates and dissolves minerals [20]. Genome sequence reveals mechanisms for extreme iron resistance [43].	Identified as a top-performing strain for direct regolith processing. Its thermophilic nature may offer robustness in controlled bioreactor environments.
Non-Siderophilic CB (e.g., Synechococcus sp. PCC 7002) [20]	Non-siderophilic, common model organism	Standard laboratory growth media	Has a lower PSI:PSII ratio (~1.8:1) compared to siderophilic strains [20]. Does not produce the same degree of effective organic acids for bioweathering [20].	Serves as a baseline comparator. Demonstrates that common, non-specialized strains are less effective for the specific ISRU task of mineral liberation from iron-rich regolith.

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Evaluation

To generate the comparative data in Table 1, researchers employ standardized methodologies. Below is a detailed protocol for a typical bioweathering experiment.

Objective: To quantify the bioweathering efficacy and physiological response of cyanobacteria when grown on Martian or Lunar regolith analogs.

Materials:

• Test Organisms: Cyanobacterial strains (e.g., JSC-1, JSC-12, and control strains).
• Growth Medium: Iron-depleted basal medium (e.g., modified BG-11).
• Substrate: Sterilized regolith analog (e.g., JSC-Mars-1 or JSC-Lunar-1).
• Bioreactors: Erlenmeyer flasks or multicomponent photobioreactors with controlled gas exchange.
• Analytical Equipment: HPLC system, Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) spectrometer, spectrophotometer, RNA sequencing tools.

Methodology:

• Inoculation and Cultivation: The test cyanobacteria are inoculated into liquid medium containing the regolith analog as the sole source of essential elements. Control cultures with standard media are run in parallel.
• Environmental Control: Cultures are maintained under controlled conditions (temperature, light intensity, photoperiod) with continuous shaking or bubbling to mix the regolith and prevent settling. The atmosphere may be controlled (e.g., enriched COâ‚‚ to simulate Martian air) [20] [41].
• Monitoring and Sampling: At regular intervals, samples are aseptically withdrawn for analysis.
• Analysis:
  • Growth Metrics: Biomass concentration is tracked via optical density (OD750) or chlorophyll-a content [42].
  • Organic Acid Production: The culture supernatant is analyzed via HPLC to identify and quantify organic acids (e.g., 2-ketoglutaric acid, citric acid) [20].
  • Elemental Release: The liquid medium is filtered and analyzed by ICP spectrometry to measure the concentration of metals (Fe, Mg, Ca, etc.) liberated from the regolith [20].
  • Gene Expression: RNA is extracted from cells. Transcript levels for key genes (e.g., IsiA-family genes involved in iron stress response) are quantified using RNA sequencing or RT-qPCR [42].

The workflow for this integrated process, from resource acquisition to supporting human life, is summarized in the following diagram.

Diagram: The Three-Stage Bioreactor System for Space Missions. This workflow shows how siderophilic cyanobacteria in Stage 1 enable the production of food and oxygen in subsequent stages by processing in-situ resources.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Research in this field relies on specific biological and chemical materials. The following table lists key reagents and their functions in experimental studies.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Investigating Siderophilic Cyanobacteria

Reagent / Material	Function in Experimental Research
Regolith Analogs (e.g., JSC-Mars-1A)	Simulates the chemical and physical properties of extraterrestrial soils, providing a standardized and safe substrate for terrestrial experiments [20].
Zarrouk's Medium (and modifications)	A chemically defined growth medium optimized for cyanobacteria. It is used as a positive control and is modified to be iron-depleted to study siderophilic responses [20].
Siderophilic Cyanobacterial Strains (JSC-1, JSC-12)	The core biological units under investigation. Their unique genetics and physiology are the focus of research for bioweathering applications [20] [43].
Organic Acid Standards (e.g., 2-ketoglutaric acid)	Analytical standards used in HPLC to identify and quantify the organic acids produced by cyanobacteria, which are the primary agents of bioweathering [20].
Gene-Specific Primers (e.g., for IsiA-family genes)	oligonucleotides designed to bind to specific gene sequences, allowing researchers to measure gene expression levels via RT-qPCR to understand molecular-level responses to iron stress [42].
M 25	M 25|Research Compound|For Research Use Only
HaXS8	HaXS8, MF:C35H43ClF4N6O8, MW:787.2 g/mol

The remarkable ability of siderophilic strains to thrive in these conditions is linked to specialized molecular pathways for managing iron stress, as illustrated below.

Diagram: Iron Stress Acclimation in Siderophilic Cyanobacteria. This pathway shows the molecular response that enables strains like Leptolyngbya JSC-1 to survive in the iron-fluctuating conditions of regolith.

The experimental data clearly demonstrates that siderophilic cyanobacteria, particularly specialized strains like Leptolyngbya JSC-1 and JSC-12, outperform non-siderophilic alternatives in the critical ISRU function of mineral liberation [20]. Their physiological and genetic adaptations—including high PSI:PSII ratios, robust production of organic acids like 2-ketoglutaric acid, and sophisticated iron-stress responses—make them uniquely suited for processing extraterrestrial regolith [20] [42].

Within the framework of a multi-stage BLSS, the efficacy of these biological components is not isolated. The success of the downstream nutritional stage (producing food and oxygen with organisms like Spirulina) is fundamentally dependent on the efficient performance of the upstream siderophilic stage, which provides essential, bioavailable nutrients [20] [19]. Therefore, the selection and optimization of siderophilic cyanobacteria are foundational to developing a sustainable, closed-loop biological life support system for deep space exploration.

The International Space Station (ISS) serves as a unique laboratory for advancing the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of critical systems, a capability of particular importance for the development of advanced, closed-loop life support. In the context of biological life support system (BLSS) research, the ISS provides the only available platform for long-duration testing of integrated biological components in a relevant microgravity environment. This testing is essential for transitioning these technologies from ground-based prototypes (TRL 4-5) to systems validated in a spaceflight environment (TRL 6-7), a necessary step for future long-duration human missions to the Moon and Mars [44] [45].

The microgravity environment of the ISS is a critical variable for biological research. It removes the confounding effects of sedimentation and buoyancy-driven convection, allowing scientists to study fundamental biological processes in a way that is not possible on Earth [46]. For life support research, this enables a more precise understanding of how microbiological cells, algae, bacteria, and plants interact in a closed system, which is the foundation for creating regenerative systems that can recycle air, water, and waste while producing food and oxygen [44].

The Path to Flight: Technology Readiness Levels in a Space Context

The TRL scale is a metric used to assess the maturity of a particular technology. Progression to higher TRLs requires testing in environments of increasing fidelity. The table below details the TRL scale with a specific focus on the role of ISS testing for biological life support technologies.

Table: Technology Readiness Levels for Spaceflight Systems with ISS Relevance

TRL	Definition	Description and Typical Activities for Biological Life Support	ISS Role and Facilities
TRL 1-3	Basic Principles Observed to Proof of Concept	Formulation of theory; early laboratory studies of biological processes (e.g., plant growth, algal oxygen production).	N/A (Ground-based research)
TRL 4-5	Component/System Validation in Lab & Relevant Environment	Integrated testing of subsystems (e.g., a photobioreactor) in a simulated ground-based space environment.	N/A (Ground-based analog testing)
TRL 6	System/Subsystem Model or Prototype Demonstration in a Relevant Environment	A representative model or prototype of the biological system is tested in the space environment.	Critical. The ISS provides the only "relevant environment" for long-duration microgravity testing of biological subsystems [44].
TRL 7	System Prototype Demonstration in a Space Environment	An engineering model of the full system operates in space.	Critical. The ISS is the primary platform for operating and validating integrated system prototypes in the actual spaceflight environment [47].
TRL 8-9	System Complete and Qualified / Proven in Operational Environment	The actual system is successfully used in a mission (e.g., on a lunar base or Mars transit vehicle).	N/A (Future missions beyond ISS)

For life support technologies, the jump from TRL 5 to TRL 6 and 7 is the most significant, as it requires moving from Earth-based simulations to the authentic microgravity conditions of the ISS. This step reveals interactions and challenges that cannot be predicted by ground models, such as altered fluid behavior, gas exchange, and microbial or plant growth dynamics [46] [48]. The ISS provides a variety of facilities, such as the Columbus and Kibo laboratory modules, which host specialized hardware like the Biolab and the Cell Biology Experiment Facility (CBEF), to conduct this vital testing [49] [44].

Efficacy of ISS Testing: Quantitative Impact and Key Biological Research

Recent research has quantified the significant impact of experiments conducted on the ISS. A 2025 study by Wang and Savin compared 1,339 ISS experiments against Earth-based counterparts and found that ISS research consistently generated higher-impact outcomes [50]. The quantitative evidence strongly supports the efficacy of the ISS as a platform for advanced research.

Table: Quantitative Research Impact: ISS vs. Earth-Based Experiments

Research Output	ISS Advantage vs. Earth-Based Research
Scientific Publications	41% more citations for ISS papers [50]
Public-Sector Publications	63% more citations [50]
Patents	67% more citations [50]
Public-Sector Patents	82% more citations [50]

Case Study: The MELiSSA Project and Microgravity's Impact on Biological Components

The Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative (MELiSSA) project, led by ESA, is a prime example of a BLSS that leverages the ISS for TRL advancement. MELiSSA aims to create a closed-loop ecosystem that regenerates waste into oxygen, water, and food, inspired by the processes of a lake ecosystem [44]. Key to its development is testing how the system's biological components behave in microgravity.

Experimental Protocol and Methodology:

• Objective: To study the growth and behavior of specific bacteria (Arthrospira) and other microorganisms in microgravity to optimize their function within the MELiSSA loop [44].
• ISS Facility: Experiments are conducted within the Biolab facility, located in the Columbus module [44].
• Process: Bacterial cultures are housed in sealed bioreactors. The Biolab provides controlled temperature, gas exchange, and nutrient delivery. Astronauts monitor the health of the cultures and take samples for periodic analysis, which may be returned to Earth for post-flight genomic, proteomic, and metabolic analysis [44].
• TRL Progression: These experiments are designed to move individual biological components and their integrated reactor systems from TRL 5 to TRL 6/7 by proving their reliability and performance in the space environment.

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow and research focus of the MELiSSA project, highlighting the role of ISS experimentation.

Experimental Protocols for Life Support Research on the ISS

Conducting experiments on the ISS requires specialized hardware and meticulously planned protocols to accommodate the constraints of the space environment and limited crew time. The following examples illustrate the methodology for different types of investigations.

Protocol 1: Protein Crystal Growth (PCG-EGN Dewar)

This passive experiment, one of the first NASA studies on the ISS, demonstrates a protocol with minimal crew involvement [51].

• Objective: To grow larger, more uniform protein crystals for structural analysis in drug development.
• Hardware: Protein Crystal Growth-Enhanced Gaseous Nitrogen (PCG-EGN) Dewar, a vacuum-jacketed container similar to a thermos [51].
• Methodology:
  • Pre-flight Sample Loading: The day before launch, hundreds of flash-frozen protein samples in capillary tubes are loaded into the Dewar.
  • Transfer to ISS: The Dewar is launched and an astronaut transfers it to a quiescent location in the ISS (e.g., Zarya module).
  • In-Situ Processing: The liquid nitrogen in the Dewar slowly boils off, allowing the samples to thaw and the proteins to crystallize over several weeks in microgravity.
  • Return to Earth: The Dewar is returned on a subsequent shuttle mission for ground-based X-ray crystallography analysis [51].

Protocol 2: Automated Biological Culture (CGBA)

The Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA) represents a more active, automated system for sustaining biological cultures [51] [52].

• Objective: To automatically process biological experiments (e.g., cultured kidney cells, fruit flies) with minimal crew interaction.
• Hardware: CGBA, a middeck-locker-sized incubator/freezer providing temperature control from -16°C to 37°C [52].
• Methodology:
  • Integration: Experiment-specific hardware, such as Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (GBA) or Gas Exchange-Group Activation Packs (GE-GAPs), is loaded into the CGBA on the ground.
  • Automated Operation: After launch, an accelerometer detects orbit insertion and automatically initiates a pre-programmed temperature profile. The CGBA manages the experiment interiorly, with data downlinked in near-real-time.
  • Crew Interaction: Crew involvement is minimal, typically limited to periodic health checks or, for some experiments, manually terminating the run [51] [52].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Hardware for ISS Life Support Research

Table: Essential Materials and Hardware for Biological Experiments on the ISS

Item / Solution	Function in Experiment	Example Use Case
Arthrospira Bacteria	A photosynthetic cyanobacterium that produces oxygen and can be consumed as food in a BLSS.	Core organism in the MELiSSA project, tested in the Biolab to assess microgravity adaptation [44].
Liquid Nutrient Media	Provides essential nutrients (C, N, P, trace elements) to sustain microbial or plant cultures.	Used in bioreactors (e.g., in CGBA or Biolab) to maintain cultures of bacteria or mammalian cells [51] [44].
Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (GBA)	A standardized container within larger incubators for housing cell cultures and controlling their fluidic environment.	Used in the CGBA on STS-106 for the "Kidney Cell Gene Expression" experiment [51].
Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA)	An incubator/freezer that provides precise temperature control for a wide array of biological samples.	A workhorse facility that has supported numerous experiments on ISS, Space Shuttle, and commercial cargo vehicles [52].
Fixatives (e.g., RNAlater, Formalin)	Preserves biological samples (tissue, cells) at a specific moment to halt degradation for post-flight analysis.	Used by crew to terminate an experiment at set time points, preserving the molecular state of the sample for Earth analysis.
Gas Exchange-Group Activation Packs (GE-GAPs)	Small containers designed to house small organisms (e.g., fruit flies) and control their gas exchange.	Used in the CGBA for the "Synaptogenesis in Microgravity" fruit fly experiment on STS-106 [51].
ML233	ML233, MF:C19H21NO4S, MW:359.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
KC02	KC02, MF:C22H41NO3, MW:367.57	Chemical Reagent

The following diagram outlines a generalized workflow for a life science experiment on the ISS, from conception to data analysis.

The International Space Station provides an indispensable platform for advancing the Technology Readiness Level of biological components for life support systems. By enabling testing in a true microgravity environment, the ISS uncovers critical insights into fluid physics, biological processes, and system integration that cannot be obtained on Earth. Quantitative data confirms that research conducted on the ISS yields a significantly higher impact, as measured by citations for both publications and patents [50]. As demonstrated by long-term programs like MELiSSA, the pathway to a reliable, closed-loop life support system for deep space exploration depends fundamentally on the continued utilization of the ISS to validate these technologies at TRL 6 and 7, bridging the gap between laboratory promise and operational reality.

Addressing System Challenges: Radiation, Integration, and Psychological Factors

Space radiation presents a formidable challenge for long-duration human space exploration, with biological effects operating across multiple scales—from molecular alterations to organism-level pathophysiology. Outside Earth's protective magnetosphere, astronauts face a complex "radiation zoo" comprising Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs), Solar Particle Events (SPEs), and trapped radiation belts [53]. GCRs consist of high-energy, heavy charged particles (HZE ions) that are so penetrating that shielding can only partially reduce their biological impact [53]. Unlike terrestrial radiation, space radiation is characterized by a unique combination of high linear energy transfer (LET) and diverse particle types, creating damage profiles that differ qualitatively from conventional X-rays or gamma rays [54]. Understanding how biological components respond to these insults at the molecular level is crucial for developing effective countermeasures and designing bioregenerative life support systems (BLSS) for sustained human presence beyond low-Earth orbit.

The molecular response mechanisms to space radiation involve a sophisticated network of DNA damage sensing, signal transduction pathways, and cellular fate decisions that determine whether cells survive, undergo apoptosis, or propagate mutations. This review systematically compares these molecular response mechanisms across different biological components—from microorganisms to human cells—and evaluates their implications for the efficacy of biological life support systems. By synthesizing current experimental data and emerging research trends, we provide a comparative framework for assessing the relative strengths and limitations of various biological components in withstanding the space radiation environment.

Space Radiation Environment and Biological Implications

Characterization of Space Radiation Components

The space radiation environment features three primary components that vary in composition, energy, and biological impact. Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) originate from outside our solar system and consist of approximately 87% protons, 12% alpha particles, and 1% heavier nuclei (including high-Z, high-energy HZE particles) [55]. Although HZE particles like iron-56 account for less than 1% of GCR flux, they contribute significantly to the total radiation dose due to their high charge and energy [55]. Solar Particle Events (SPEs) are unpredictable bursts of energetic particles, predominantly protons, emitted during solar flares and coronal mass ejections [55]. The third component includes particles trapped in planetary magnetospheres, such as Earth's Van Allen radiation belts, which primarily expose astronauts in low-Earth orbit as they pass through the South Atlantic Anomaly [53] [56].

Table 1: Space Radiation Components and Their Characteristics

Radiation Type	Composition	Energy Range	Penetrating Power	Primary Biological Concerns
Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs)	98% baryons (87% protons, 12% alpha particles, 1% HZE ions)	Up to 10^20 eV	Extremely high, difficult to shield	Chronic effects: carcinogenesis, CNS damage, degenerative tissue effects
Solar Particle Events (SPEs)	~90% protons, ~10% helium ions, ~1% heavier ions	Up to several GeV	Moderate to high (dose-rate dependent)	Acute radiation syndrome, skin damage, compromised immune function
Trapped Radiation (Van Allen Belts)	Protons and electrons	Several hundred MeV	Lower (shieldable)	Cumulative exposure, especially in South Atlantic Anomaly

Radiation Exposure Across Mission Scenarios

Radiation exposure varies dramatically based on mission location and duration. In Low-Earth Orbit (LEO), such as aboard the International Space Station (ISS), astronauts receive an average daily dose of approximately 0.4 mSv, accumulating to about 72 mSv during a six-month mission [53]. The South Atlantic Anomaly represents a particular hotspot within LEO, where the inner Van Allen belt dips closest to Earth's surface, significantly increasing radiation exposure during these orbital passages [53]. In contrast, deep space missions beyond Earth's magnetosphere face substantially higher radiation levels, with measurements from the Mars Science Laboratory showing an average GCR dose-equivalent rate of 1.84 mSv/day—over 4.5 times the average daily dose on the ISS [53]. A projected three-year Mars mission could accumulate doses exceeding 1,000 mSv, surpassing current NASA career safety limits for astronauts and presenting significant health risks [53].

Comparative Molecular Response Mechanisms

DNA Damage Recognition and Repair Pathways

Ionizing radiation directly and indirectly induces complex DNA lesions, with DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) representing the most biologically significant damage type [57]. The spatial distribution and complexity of these breaks differs substantially between low-LET (e.g., gamma rays) and high-LET radiation (e.g., HZE particles), with the latter producing more complex, clustered damage that challenges cellular repair machinery [57]. Mammalian cells employ three principal DSB repair pathways: non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), homologous recombination (HR), and single-strand annealing (SSA) [57]. The choice between these pathways depends on factors including cell cycle phase, break complexity, and the specific proteins recruited to damage sites.

Research using human peripheral blood lymphocytes exposed to acute ex vivo 2Gy gamma-ray irradiation has identified 179 key molecules involved in the radiation response network, including 23 transcription factors, 10 miRNAs, and 146 genes that form interconnected regulatory modules [58]. Among these, the transcription factor TP53 emerges as a central hub with the largest degree in radiation-related molecular networks, governing critical cell fate decisions following radiation-induced DNA damage [58]. Another key player, CHEK1, exhibits the highest betweenness centrality in the network, functioning to restore mitotic progression following radiation-induced DNA damage [58]. The network analysis also identified has-miR-34a-5p as a candidate radiation biomarker, demonstrating the involvement of miRNA regulation in the biological effects of ionizing radiation [58].

Diagram 1: DNA Damage Response and Repair Pathways. This diagram illustrates the major molecular pathways activated in response to radiation-induced DNA damage, from initial recognition through repair execution and subsequent cell fate decisions.

Oxidative Stress and Inflammatory Signaling

Beyond direct DNA damage, space radiation induces indirect effects through radiolysis of water and generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that propagate oxidative stress [55]. High-LET radiation produces particularly dense ionization tracks that create complex clusters of oxidative damage across cellular macromolecules. The transcription factor SP1 has been identified as a valuable biomarker of ionizing radiation through its participation in modulation of radiation-induced oxidative stress response pathways and matrix regulation [58]. Functional enrichment analyses of radiation-responsive molecular networks reveal associations with processes including cytidine deamination, extracellular matrix remodeling, and apoptosis [58].

The sustained oxidative stress from space radiation exposure triggers chronic inflammatory signaling that contributes to degenerative tissue effects. Studies indicate that radiation exposure may increase osteoclast differentiation and acute bone loss via increased reactive oxygen species production and oxidative damage, suggesting different molecular mechanisms from the bone loss caused by disuse alone [55]. Combined exposure to proton radiation and hindlimb suspension in rodent models resulted in approximately 20% loss of trabecular bone volume fraction, with combined treatments producing greater damage than either stressor alone [55]. Similarly, iron ion radiation—a significant GCR component—contributes to reduced compressive strength and impairs recovery of cancellous microarchitecture from skeletal unloading [55].

Epigenetic Regulation and Non-Coding RNA Networks

Epigenetic mechanisms and non-coding RNAs constitute crucial regulatory layers in the cellular response to space radiation. Integrative analysis of miRNA and gene expression profiles in human peripheral blood lymphocytes collected 24 hours post-exposure to 2Gy gamma-ray irradiation identified 10 key miRNAs within the radiation-responsive molecular network [58]. These miRNAs participate in coordinated regulatory programs alongside transcription factors and target genes, influencing critical biological processes including cell cycle regulation, cell differentiation, viral carcinogenesis, and apoptosis [58]. The identification of specific miRNAs like hsa-miR-133b as potential biomarkers for human acute radiation syndrome highlights the diagnostic and functional importance of these regulatory molecules [58].

Table 2: Comparative Molecular Response Mechanisms Across Biological Components

Biological Component	DNA Repair Mechanisms	Oxidative Stress Response	Regulatory Networks	Relative Radioresistance
Human Lymphocytes	NHEJ, HR, SSA with TP53 and CHEK1 as central regulators	SP1-mediated pathway activation, extracellular matrix remodeling	179-key molecule network (23 TFs, 10 miRNAs, 146 genes)	Low to moderate (dose-dependent apoptosis)
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Yeast)	Homologous recombination (rad51-dependent), NHEJ	Redox potential alterations, metabolic adaptation	rad51 deletion mutants show defective growth and metabolism	Moderate (experimental biosensor)
Higher Plants	Photoreactivation, base excision repair, antioxidant systems	Photosynthetic apparatus protection, flavonoid induction	Phytochrome signaling, developmental plasticity	High (species-dependent)
Extremophiles (e.g., Cyanobacteria)	Efficient ROS detoxification, specialized DNA repair	Compatible solute accumulation, chaperone proteins	Transcriptional reprogramming, photolyase activation	Very high (radiation-resistant species)

Experimental Models and Methodologies

Transcriptomic Network Analysis

The integrative approach to elucidate radiation-perturbed molecular networks involves a multi-step methodology beginning with acquisition of gene and miRNA expression profiles from biological samples exposed to radiation conditions, typically sourced from repositories like the GEO database [58]. Following differential expression analysis to identify significantly altered molecules (e.g., using thresholds of adjusted p < 0.05 and |log2FC| > 1), researchers construct heterogeneous TF-miRNA-gene regulatory networks by integrating well-established molecular interactions from multiple databases [58]. The Random Walk with Restart (RWR) algorithm is then applied to this network using differentially expressed molecules as seed nodes, enabling identification of radiation-related key molecules based on topological significance [58]. Subsequent Molecular Complex Detection (MCODE) analysis reveals densely connected modules within this network that represent functional units in the radiation response [58].

Diagram 2: Experimental Workflow for Radiation Response Studies. This diagram outlines the integrated experimental and computational pipeline used to identify molecular response mechanisms to space radiation, from sample collection through translational applications.

Biosensor and Model Organism Approaches

CubeSat missions like NASA's BioSentinel project utilize model organisms as biosensors to characterize space radiation effects beyond low-Earth orbit [59]. The BioSentinel payload contains two yeast strains: a wild-type control for monitoring health and normal DNA damage repair, and a rad51 deletion mutant defective in DNA damage repair that shows altered growth and metabolism as radiation damage accumulates [59]. Changes in growth and metabolic activity are measured using a 3-color LED detection system and the metabolic redox dye alamarBlue, with preliminary tests indicating significant response to space-like, low-dose ionizing radiation [59]. Despite a billion years of evolutionary separation, yeast share homology in hundreds of genes important for basic cell function with humans, particularly in DNA damage response pathways, making them excellent biosensors for detecting types and extent of damage induced by space radiation [59].

Ground-based facilities attempt to simulate space radiation conditions using particle accelerators that generate specific components of the GCR spectrum, such as iron ions, though complete replication of the complex space radiation environment remains challenging [56]. These facilities enable controlled studies on radiation effects using various model systems, including rodent models for central nervous system effects, plant models for bioregenerative life support applications, and 3D cell cultures that better recapitulate tissue-level responses [56]. The combination of space-based experiments with ground-based simulations allows researchers to disentangle the effects of radiation from other spaceflight stressors, such as microgravity, though significant limitations remain in fully capturing the unique features of the space radiation environment.

Implications for Biological Life Support Systems

Radiation Effects on BLSS Components

Biological Life Support Systems (BLSS) incorporate producer compartments (plants, microalgae), consumer compartments (crew), and degraders/recyclers (microorganisms) to regenerate resources and produce food [2]. Space radiation poses a significant threat to all biological components of these systems, potentially disrupting the delicate balance of interconnected compartments. For higher plants, which serve as primary food producers and contribute to air revitalization, radiation can impact photosynthetic efficiency, development, and yield [2]. Different mission scenarios dictate distinct plant selection criteria: for short-duration missions, fast-growing species like leafy greens and microgreens provide nutritional supplementation, while for long-duration planetary outposts, staple crops (wheat, potato, rice) must be included to provide carbohydrates, proteins, and fats [2].

The microbial compartments within BLSS, essential for waste degradation and resource recycling, exhibit variable radiosensitivity depending on taxonomic classification and physiological state. Studies have identified extremophiles with remarkable radiation resistance mechanisms, including efficient DNA repair pathways and robust oxidative stress protection systems [56]. Understanding the molecular basis of this radioresistance provides valuable insights for engineering more robust BLSS communities or selecting appropriate strains for space applications. The Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative (MELiSSA) program represents one of the most comprehensive efforts to develop a closed-loop BLSS, with ground-based pilot plants testing the integration of multiple biological compartments for oxygen, water, and food production [2].

Countermeasure Development and Radioresistance Engineering

Research on molecular response mechanisms has facilitated the identification of potential countermeasures against space radiation damage. Integrative network analyses have predicted 20 potential therapeutic compounds, including small molecules (e.g., Navitoclax) and Traditional Chinese Medicine ingredients (e.g., Genistin, Saikosaponin D), which may alleviate radiation-induced damage such as pulmonary fibrosis and oxidative stress [58]. These candidates emerge from systematic mapping of radiation-perturbed networks onto drug-target databases, enabling rational selection of compounds that might restore network homeostasis.

The study of naturally radiation-resistant organisms provides a blueprint for engineering enhanced radioresistance in BLSS components. Extremophiles such as Deinococcus radiodurans exhibit extraordinary DNA repair capabilities and oxidative stress protection mechanisms that enable survival after massive radiation exposure [54]. Key mechanisms include efficient ROS detoxification systems, compatible solute accumulation, chaperone proteins, and specialized DNA repair pathways that operate in concert to maintain genomic integrity [54]. Transferring these capabilities to BLSS organisms through synthetic biology approaches represents a promising strategy for creating more robust biological systems for space applications.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Methods

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Methods for Space Radiation Biology

Reagent/Method	Category	Function/Application	Example Use Cases
PADLES Dosimeter	Radiation Monitoring	Passive radiation detection using CR-39 plastic nuclear track detectors	Area monitoring in ISS Japanese Experiment Module "Kibo" [54]
Bio PADLES	Biological Dosimetry	Dose measurement of biological samples exposed to space radiation	Linking physical dose to biological effects in space experiments [54]
alamarBlue	Metabolic Assay	Measures metabolic activity via resazurin reduction	BioSentinel yeast growth and metabolism monitoring [59]
Heterogeneous Network Construction	Computational Biology	Integrates TF-gene, miRNA-gene, and TF-miRNA interactions	Identifying 179 key radiation-responsive molecules [58]
Random Walk with Restart (RWR)	Network Analysis	Prioritizes molecules based on topological significance	Selecting top 1% of nodes as radiation-related key molecules [58]
MCODE Algorithm	Module Detection	Identifies densely connected regions in molecular networks	Discovering 5 key functional modules in radiation response [58]
rad51 Deletion Mutant	Genetic Tool	Creates DNA repair-deficient biosensor strain	BioSentinel payload for detecting radiation damage accumulation [59]
SPE I	SPE I Sorbent	SPE I is a solid-phase extraction sorbent for sample prep. For Research Use Only (RUO). Not for human, veterinary, or household use.	Bench Chemicals
Topaz	Topaz, CAS:118817-61-1, MF:C9H9BrN2	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The molecular response to space radiation involves complex, interconnected networks that span from DNA damage recognition to organism-level pathophysiology. Comparative analysis reveals both conserved mechanisms and specialized adaptations across biological components, with implications for their relative efficacy in life support systems. While human cells activate sophisticated DNA repair and checkpoint pathways centered on regulators like TP53 and CHEK1, microbial and plant components of BLSS often employ more robust protective mechanisms that confer greater radioresistance. Understanding these differential response capacities enables more informed selection and engineering of biological elements for space applications.

Future research directions should prioritize integrated multi-omics approaches that capture the dynamic interplay between transcriptional, epigenetic, and metabolic responses to space radiation. Ground-based facilities that better simulate the complex space radiation spectrum, particularly the high-LET component, are essential for validating findings from transcriptomic networks. The development of personalized radiation protection strategies based on individual molecular response signatures represents a promising translational application [60]. Furthermore, exploiting natural variation in radioresistance across species through synthetic biology approaches may yield engineered BLSS components with enhanced capacity to withstand the space environment. As we venture toward longer-duration missions to the Moon and Mars, elucidating the nuanced molecular response mechanisms to space radiation will be crucial for developing effective countermeasures and designing robust, self-sustaining life support systems.

The success of long-duration human space exploration hinges on the development of robust Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) that can reliably regenerate air, purify water, and produce food through biological processes. Within these systems, plants and microorganisms perform essential functions but are subjected to a complex matrix of environmental stressors, with altered gravity being a quintessential spaceflight challenge. This review comprehensively compares the efficacy of various biological components in BLSS by synthesizing experimental data on how gravity perturbations interact with other abiotic stressors to influence plant physiology and microbial function. We examine phenotypic, physiological, and molecular responses across species and microbial communities, providing structured comparisons of stress tolerance and functional performance. The analysis identifies optimal plant species and microbial consortia for different mission scenarios, evaluates the relative impact of multiple stressor interactions, and outlines advanced mitigation strategies including biostimulants and genetic engineering approaches. This systematic evaluation of biological component efficacy provides a critical knowledge base for advancing BLSS design and operational protocols for future lunar and Martian missions.

Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) represent the next evolutionary step in sustaining human life during long-duration space missions, transitioning from purely physical-chemical systems to integrated biological systems that can regenerate air, water, and produce food while recycling waste [2]. The fundamental concept of BLSS mimics ecological networks where various trophic levels interconnect to create functional biogeochemical cycles, with plants serving as primary producers, crew as consumers, and microorganisms as degraders and recyclers [2]. As missions extend farther from Earth and resupply becomes increasingly impractical, the incorporation of biological elements evolves from "nice-to-have" to a "must-have" requirement for mission sustainability [2].

The space environment presents a unique combination of stressors that profoundly affect biological components within BLSS. Among these, altered gravity (microgravity and partial gravity) constitutes a fundamental challenge distinct from terrestrial conditions, directly impacting physiological processes at organismal, cellular, and molecular levels [61] [62]. Plants exposed to microgravity experience disruptions in gravitropism, altered fluid behavior affecting hydration and gas exchange, and changes in gene expression patterns, particularly in genes related to auxin signaling and stress responses [61] [62]. These effects compound when gravity perturbations interact with other environmental stressors such as drought, radiation, and nutrient limitations, creating stress combinations that can produce synergistic impacts more severe than individual stressors alone [63] [64].

This review employs a comparative framework to evaluate biological component efficacy across three domains: (1) plant species performance under single and combined stressors, (2) microbial functional responses to interactive environmental challenges, and (3) technological and biological mitigation strategies. By synthesizing experimental data from simulated microgravity platforms, orbital experiments, and ground-based analogues, we establish evidence-based recommendations for BLSS design and identify critical knowledge gaps for future research.

Plant Responses to Gravity Stress and Stress Combinations

Gravity Perception and Signaling Mechanisms

Plants have evolved sophisticated mechanisms to perceive and respond to gravity through the process of gravitropism, which directs root growth downward (positive gravitropism) and shoot growth upward (negative gravitropism). This process involves three distinct phases: gravity perception primarily occurring in specialized statocyte cells containing starch-filled amyloplasts that sediment in response to gravity; signal transduction involving calcium ions, inositol trisphosphate, and pH changes; and asymmetric response driven by the redistribution of the phytohormone auxin to the lower sides of roots and shoots [61] [62]. In microgravity environments, the sedimentation of amyloplasts is disrupted, interfering with the initial gravity perception phase and subsequently altering auxin distribution patterns [62]. The PIN-FORMED (PIN) proteins that facilitate directional auxin transport have been identified as critical components in this process, with studies showing significant differential expression of OsPIN genes in rice plants under altered gravity conditions [62].

The CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing technique has emerged as a powerful tool for investigating the function of gravitropism-related genes by creating targeted mutations in PIN genes and other components of the gravity signaling pathway [62]. This approach allows researchers to precisely determine the roles of specific genes in plant gravity responses and potentially develop varieties with optimized growth characteristics for space environments.

Comparative Plant Performance Under Altered Gravity

Research conducted on the International Space Station (ISS) and using ground-based simulators has revealed significant interspecific differences in how plants respond to microgravity. To date, only five plant species—Arabidopsis thaliana, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), pea (Pisum sativum), Brassica rapa L., and rice (Oryza sativa L.)—have successfully completed full seed-to-seed cycles in space, demonstrating their potential for BLSS integration [61]. The phenotypic, physiological, and molecular responses to microgravity have been systematically investigated across species, revealing both conserved and species-specific adaptation mechanisms.

Table 1: Plant Species Successfully Completed Seed-to-Seed Cycle in Space

Plant Species	Mission/Facility	Key Observations	BLSS Relevance
Arabidopsis thaliana	Multiple ISS experiments	Successful seed production; alterations in gene expression patterns	Model organism for fundamental research
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)	ISS Plant Growth Facility	Complete life cycle; minor morphological changes	Staple crop for carbohydrate supply
Pea (Pisum sativum)	BIOS/ISS	Normal development with some gravitational stress responses	Protein source; fast-growing
Brassica rapa L.	ISS experiments	Successful reproduction; changes in metabolite profile	Fast-cycling; nutritional variety
Rice (Oryza sativa L.)	Chinese space station	Full life cycle completion; differential OsPIN gene expression	Staple crop for carbohydrate supply

The selection of optimal plant species for BLSS depends heavily on mission duration and objectives. For short-duration missions (e.g., missions to LEO), fast-growing species that occupy minimal volume while providing high nutritional value are preferred, including leafy greens (e.g., lettuce, kale), microgreens, and dwarf cultivars of horticultural crops (e.g., tomato) [2]. These species primarily serve to supplement astronaut diets with fresh, nutrient-dense foods rich in antioxidants and prebiotics that help counteract space-induced physiological stresses [2]. For long-duration missions and planetary outposts (e.g., Lunar or Martian bases), staple crops (e.g., wheat, potato, rice, soy) must be incorporated to provide carbohydrates, proteins, and fats, along with longer-growth-cycle vegetables and fruits (e.g., tomato, peppers, beans, berries) that contribute substantially to resource recycling and food production [2].

Interactive Effects of Gravity with Other Environmental Stressors

Plants in BLSS inevitably face multiple concurrent stressors, and research indicates that stress combinations often produce non-additive effects that cannot be predicted from studying individual stressors in isolation [63]. A review of plant strategies to resist biotic and abiotic environmental stressors highlighted that exposure to concurrent stressors such as cadmium and drought leads to pronounced inhibition in above-ground biomass, oxidative homeostasis imbalance, disrupted nutrient assimilation, and stunted root growth, illustrating the synergistic interactions between multiple stressors [63]. These interactive effects extend beyond individual plants to influence the broader microenvironment, including rhizosphere nutrient profiles and microbiome composition [63].

The integration of advanced technologies such as omics approaches (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) and molecular tools is essential for deciphering the complex networks underlying plant responses to multiple stressors [63]. These approaches enable researchers to identify key molecular players and regulatory networks that could be targeted for engineering enhanced multi-stress tolerance in BLSS crops.

Microbial Function Under Environmental Stressors

Soil Microbiome Responses to Stress Combinations

Microorganisms perform critical nutrient cycling functions in BLSS, particularly in the breakdown of organic waste and transformation of nutrients into plant-available forms. Among these processes, phosphorus (P) cycling mediated by specialized microorganisms (PCMs) is essential for maintaining plant nutrient availability [64]. Phosphorus cycling microorganisms facilitate organic P mineralization (represented by the phoD gene) and inorganic P dissolution (pqqC), driving terrestrial P cycling and enhancing P availability to plants [64].

A large-scale survey and controlled experiments investigating the interactive effects of multiple environmental stressors on PCMs revealed that interactive effects are more ubiquitous and significant than individual stressor effects [64]. Specifically, acidification and drought demonstrated antagonistic effects on the abundances of organic P mineralization microorganisms but synergistic effects on inorganic P dissolution microorganisms, while antagonistic effects between drought and metal pollution were observed on the diversity of these microorganisms [64]. These findings highlight the complex nature of microbial responses to multiple stressors in controlled life support systems.

Table 2: Interactive Effects of Environmental Stressors on Phosphorus-Cycling Microorganisms

Stressor Combination	Effect Type	Impact on PCM Abundance	Impact on PCM Diversity
Acidification + Drought	Antagonistic	Reduced negative effect on organic P mineralizers (phoD)	Not specified
Acidification + Drought	Synergistic	Enhanced effect on inorganic P solubilizers (pqqC)	Not specified
Drought + Metal Pollution	Antagonistic	Not specified	Reduced negative impact on community diversity
Acidification + Drought	Genus-specific	Synergistic for Mesorhizobium and Stenotrophomonas (phoD)	Not specified
Acidification + Drought	Genus-specific	Antagonistic for Streptomyces (phoD)	Not specified
Drought + Metal Pollution	Genus-specific	Antagonistic for Methylobacterium (pqqC)	Not specified

Variance partitioning analysis from the same study indicated that acidification accounted for the largest variance in the abundances of P cycling microorganisms (62.3%), organic P mineralizing microorganisms (57.9%), and inorganic P dissolving microorganisms (77.8%), while drought explained 21.2%, 23.9%, and 11.8% of the variance for these respective groups [64]. Other stressors including salinization, human disturbance, and metal pollution contributed less to the abundance of P-cycling microorganisms than acidification and drought [64].

Plant-Microbe Interactions Under Stress Conditions

Drought stress significantly alters root exudate profiles, which in turn influences the composition and function of the rhizosphere microbiome [65]. Under drought conditions, plants increase the synthesis of glycerol-3-phosphate (G3P), which enriches Actinobacteria populations in the rhizosphere, thereby enhancing plant health and fitness under water deficit conditions [65]. Additionally, reduced salicylic acid (SA) production during drought substantially affects the development of both endophytic and rhizospheric microbial communities [65].

Drought also decreases iron (Fe) and phyto-siderophore availability in the rhizosphere, creating conditions that benefit actinobacteria, which can improve plant performance under stress [65]. Furthermore, under drought stress, many plant species exhibit reduced populations of diderm (Gram-negative) bacteria in roots and rhizosphere while attracting monoderm (Gram-positive) bacteria, which possess thicker cell walls that confer greater resistance to desiccation [65]. These stress-adapted microorganisms can subsequently enhance plant stress tolerance through various mechanisms including the production of exopolysaccharides that improve soil structure and water-holding capacity, synthesis of indoleacetic acid (IAA), deaminase, and proline, and enhanced water acquisition capabilities [65].

Experimental Methodologies for Gravity and Stress Research

Microgravity Simulation Platforms and Experimental Protocols

Research on plant and microbial responses to altered gravity utilizes both ground-based simulators and space-based facilities, each with distinct advantages and limitations. Ground-based simulated microgravity platforms include clinostats (2D and 3D random positioning machines) and magnetic levitators, while real microgravity platforms include drop towers, parabolic flights, sounding rockets, and orbital platforms such as the International Space Station (ISS) and China's Tiangong station [61]. Each platform offers different operational timeframes, g-levels, and applicability for specific research questions.

Table 3: Microgravity Research Platforms and Their Characteristics

Platform Type	Microgravity Duration	g-Level	Advantages	Limitations
2D Clinostat	Hours to weeks	≤10⁻³	Unlimited operation time; adjustable gravity; low cost	Not real microgravity; mechanical stress on samples
3D Clinostat (RPM)	Hours to weeks	10⁻⁴	Better simulation than 2D; unlimited operation time	Not real microgravity; limited sample volume
Magnetic Levitator	Minutes to hours	<10⁻²	Effectively eliminates gravity; adjustable gravity	High-intensity magnetic fields may affect results
Drop Tower	2.5–9.3 seconds	10⁻³–10⁻⁶	Highest-quality microgravity; daily access	Very short duration; limited experiment frequency
Parabolic Flight	~20 seconds per parabola	10⁻²	Human-tended experiments; moderate duration	Alternating hypergravity and microgravity phases
Sounding Rockets	5–10 minutes	≤10⁻⁴	Longer microgravity duration; high-quality μg	Limited experiment frequency (every 2 years)
Orbital Platforms (ISS)	Months to years	10⁻⁶	Long-duration studies; authentic space environment	Extremely high cost; limited access

Standardized experimental protocols have been established for plant gravity research. For seed-to-seed experiments, protocols typically include surface sterilization of seeds, germination under controlled conditions, transfer to specialized growth chambers compatible with spaceflight hardware, and maintenance under specific light, temperature, and nutrient regimes throughout the complete life cycle [61]. For gene expression studies, sample collection typically occurs at multiple developmental stages, with immediate preservation in RNA-later or flash-freezing in liquid nitrogen to maintain RNA integrity until analysis [61] [62].

Methodologies for Assessing Microbial Function Under Stress

Research on microbial responses to multiple stressors employs both large-scale field surveys and controlled laboratory experiments [64]. Standard protocols include soil sampling from multiple sites representing environmental gradients, DNA extraction and quantification of functional genes (e.g., phoD, pqqC) using qPCR, community composition analysis through amplicon sequencing, and measurement of soil physicochemical properties including P availability, total carbon, and nitrogen [64].

Controlled experiments typically involve subjecting soil samples or microbial cultures to defined stressor combinations (e.g., specific pH levels, moisture content, pollutant concentrations) using factorial designs that allow detection of interactive effects [64]. The effect size of interactions is calculated by comparing observed values under stressor combinations with expected values derived from individual stressor effects, with positive values indicating synergistic interactions and negative values indicating antagonistic interactions [64].

Signaling Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

Plant Gravity Sensing and Signal Transduction

The molecular pathway for gravity sensing and response involves a coordinated sequence of events beginning with gravity perception and culminating in asymmetric growth. The following diagram illustrates the key components and flow of information in the plant gravitropism pathway:

Plant Gravity Sensing and Signal Transduction Pathway

As illustrated above, the gravitropism pathway initiates with amyloplast sedimentation in statocytes, which triggers gravity perception through putative mechanosensitive channels [61] [62]. This perception activates calcium signaling and inositol trisphosphate pathways, leading to the asymmetric localization of PIN proteins that direct the flow of the hormone auxin to the lower sides of gravistimulated organs [62]. The resulting auxin redistribution creates a concentration gradient that drives differential gene expression and ultimately asymmetric growth - downward for roots and upward for shoots [61]. Under microgravity conditions, the initial amyloplast sedimentation is disrupted, leading to altered PIN protein expression and aberrant auxin distribution patterns [62].

Microbial Stress Response Pathways

Microorganisms employ multiple strategies to sense and respond to environmental stressors including drought, acidification, and pollution. The following diagram illustrates key microbial response mechanisms to environmental stressors:

Microbial Stress Response Mechanisms

As shown in the diagram, environmental stressors are sensed through various microbial mechanisms including membrane sensors, DNA damage detection, and redox state monitoring [64] [65]. These sensors trigger response mechanisms such as osmolyte production for water retention, cell wall modification for enhanced desiccation resistance (particularly in monoderm bacteria), enzyme activation including those encoded by phoD and pqqC genes for phosphorus cycling, and community composition shifts toward stress-tolerant taxa [64] [65]. These responses collectively maintain ecosystem functions including phosphorus solubilization, nutrient cycling, and plant growth promotion under stress conditions [64].

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

The following table provides essential research reagents, tools, and platforms for investigating plant and microbial responses to gravity and environmental stressors:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Gravity and Stress Biology

Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Application/Function	Example Use Cases
Microgravity Simulators	2D/3D Clinostats (RPM)	Ground-based microgravity simulation by continuous reorientation	Study of gravitropism mechanisms [61]
	Magnetic Levitators	Gravity counteraction via magnetic forces	Investigation of amyloplast sedimentation [61]
	Centrifuges	Hypergravity and partial gravity studies	Gravity threshold determination [61]
Molecular Biology Tools	CRISPR/Cas9 systems	Targeted genome editing	PIN gene functional analysis [62]
	qPCR reagents	Gene expression quantification	phoD/pqqC gene abundance measurement [64]
	RNA-seq kits	Transcriptome profiling	Global gene expression under microgravity [61]
Microbial Analysis	Functional gene primers	Amplification of phoD, pqqC, etc.	Phosphorus-cycling microbiome assessment [64]
	Amplicon sequencing kits	Microbial community profiling	Rhizosphere microbiome changes under stress [65]
Plant Growth Systems	specialized growth chambers	Controlled environment plant cultivation	Seed-to-seed experiments in space analogs [2]
	Rhizoboxes	Non-destructive root imaging	Root architecture responses to stress combinations [65]
Analytical Reagents	ELISA kits	Phytohormone quantification	Auxin distribution measurements [62]
	Oxidative stress assay kits	ROS and antioxidant activity	Oxidative damage assessment under multiple stresses [63]

The comparative analysis of biological components within BLSS reveals several key insights for advancing life support system efficacy. First, species selection must be mission-specific, with fast-growing leafy vegetables optimal for short-duration missions and staple crops essential for long-duration planetary outposts [2]. Second, interactive effects between multiple stressors frequently produce non-additive impacts on both plants and microorganisms, necessitating research on stress combinations rather than individual stressors [63] [64]. Third, microbiome management represents a critical opportunity for enhancing system resilience, particularly through the enrichment of stress-adapted microbial taxa that can improve plant stress tolerance [65].

Future research should prioritize several strategic directions: (1) developing multivariate experimental designs that systematically test interactions between gravity, radiation, and other space-relevant stressors; (2) integrating omics technologies to elucidate molecular networks underlying multi-stress responses; (3) engineering microbial consortia with enhanced functionality under space conditions; and (4) validating ground-based findings through orbital experiments that expose biological components to the authentic space environment. The MELiSSA Consortium and similar international efforts provide essential platforms for coordinating this research through collaborative projects that bridge fundamental science with technological applications [2] [66].

As we advance toward sustainable human presence beyond Earth, the efficacy of biological components in BLSS will fundamentally depend on our understanding of how gravity interfaces with other environmental stressors at molecular, organismal, and ecosystem levels. By applying comparative frameworks across species and systems, researchers can identify optimal biological candidates and cultivation strategies that will ultimately enable the self-sustaining life support systems required for humanity's future as a multi-planetary species.

The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) on the International Space Station (ISS) represents one of the most advanced and rigorously tested closed-loop life support systems ever deployed [67]. For researchers developing biological life support systems and therapeutic preservation technologies, the ISS ECLSS serves as a full-scale analog, demonstrating the integration of physicochemical and biological processes to maintain viability in extreme environments. This guide compares the performance, reliability, and maintenance requirements of the primary subsystems responsible for atmospheric management and water recovery aboard the ISS, providing critical data on their operational efficacy under real-world conditions.

Comparative Performance Analysis of ISS ECLSS Subsystems

The ISS ECLSS comprises multiple interdependent systems that maintain a habitable environment through oxygen generation, carbon dioxide removal, and water recovery. The table below presents a structured comparison of their key performance metrics, highlighting their relative advantages and limitations.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Major ISS Atmospheric Revitalization Systems

System Name	Primary Technology	Key Inputs	Key Outputs	Performance Notes & Reliability
Elektron [67]	Water Electrolysis	Water, Electricity	Oxygen, Hydrogen (vented)	Primary Oâ‚‚ source; historically plagued with issues including gas bubbles, potassium hydroxide leaks, and shutdowns.
Oxygen Generating System (OGS) [67]	Water Electrolysis	Water, Electricity	Oxygen, Hydrogen (vented)	US segment system; failed in 2010 due to acidic water input; repaired and returned to operation.
Advanced Closed Loop System (ACLS) [67]	Sabatier Reactor + Electrolysis	Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen, Water	Oxygen, Methane (vented), Water	Recovers 50% of COâ‚‚; recycles water; demonstrator successful, now permanent; reduces resupply needs.
Vika (SFOG) [67]	Chemical Oxygen Generation	Lithium Perchlorate Canisters	Oxygen, Lithium Chloride (solid)	Backup system; each canister supports one crewmember for one day.
Vozdukh [67]	Regenerable COâ‚‚ Absorbers	Cabin Air	COâ‚‚-free Air	Russian COâ‚‚ removal system.
Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA) [67]	Regenerable COâ‚‚ Absorbers	Cabin Air	COâ‚‚-free Air	US segment system located in the US Lab and Node 3 modules.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of ISS Water Recovery Systems

System Name	Process	Input	Output	Efficiency & Reliability
Water Recovery System (WRS) [67]	Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) & Water Processor Assembly (WPA)	Urine, Condensate	Potable Water	Designed for 85% water recovery from urine; operational level revised to ~70% due to calcium precipitation in microgravity.
Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) [67]	Low-Pressure Vacuum Distillation with Centrifuge	Urine	Purified Water, Brine	Initial failures post-installation (2008) due to centrifuge sensor issues and bearing failure; required remounting and replacement.

Experimental Protocols for System Validation

The deployment of ECLSS components involved rigorous ground-based and in-orbit testing to validate their performance and reliability. The following protocols detail the key methodologies used.

Protocol for Water Processor Assembly Catalytic Reactor Validation

The Volatile Removal Assembly (VRA) flight experiment was crucial for testing a core component of the Water Processor Assembly (WPA) under microgravity conditions [67].

• Objective: To demonstrate the efficacy of the high-temperature catalytic reactor in oxidizing volatile organic compounds and removing microorganisms from wastewater streams in a microgravity environment.
• Flight Mission: The VRA experiment flew aboard Space Shuttle mission STS-89 in January 1998 [67].
• Methodology:
  • A simulated wastewater stream, containing known concentrations of organic contaminants and microbial challenges, was introduced into the VRA system.
  • The fluid was passed through the high-temperature catalytic reactor assembly.
  • Post-processed water samples were collected.
  • The samples were returned to Earth for analysis to verify the reduction in contaminant levels and microbial load.
• Outcome: The successful performance of the VRA in microgravity provided critical data that supported the final design and implementation of the flight-certified Water Processor Assembly for the ISS.

Protocol for Urine Processor Assembly Centrifuge Function

The Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) relies on a centrifuge to compensate for the lack of gravity, a function that required extensive troubleshooting [67].

• Objective: To achieve reliable phase separation (liquids and gasses) in a low-pressure distillation process for urine.
• In-Orbit Validation & Troubleshooting:
  • Initial Activation (November 2008): The UPA was activated aboard the ISS. The distillation assembly failed one day later [67].
  • Anomaly Detection: Sensors reported anomalous centrifuge speeds and high motor current.
  • Initial Correction: The distillation assembly was remounted, temporarily omitting several rubber vibration isolators.
  • Recurring Failure & Root Cause Analysis: The assembly failed again in December 2008. The unit was replaced in March 2009. Subsequent post-failure testing on the ground identified a misaligned centrifuge speed sensor and a failed compressor bearing as the root causes [67].
• Outcome: This iterative process of in-orbit failure and ground-based analysis was essential for identifying and rectifying design flaws, ultimately improving the UPA's long-term reliability.

System Interdependencies and Maintenance Workflow

The reliability of the ECLSS is a function of both individual component performance and the complex interdependencies between systems. Maintenance is a critical, planned operation due to limited crew time and resources.

Figure 1: ECLSS Interdependencies and Maintenance. This diagram illustrates the logical relationships between core life support processes and the essential maintenance workflow required for sustained operation. Key subsystems are interdependent, forming closed loops for oxygen and water recovery.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key components and reagents derived from ECLSS operations and research that are pivotal for related scientific disciplines, including biopreservation and closed-system biology.

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials in Life Support Research

Item/Reagent	Function in Research Context	Relevance to Broader Thesis
Lithium Perchlorate (in Vika) [67]	Solid-fuel source for emergency oxygen generation in SFOG canisters.	Exemplifies a reliable, on-demand chemical oxygen source; a benchmark for stability and safety in reagent storage for critical applications.
Amine Scrubber (in ACLS, CDRA) [67]	Adsorbs and concentrates carbon dioxide from the cabin atmosphere for removal or processing.	A key technology for managing metabolic waste gas; its regenerative nature informs designs for portable medical and laboratory gas scrubbing systems.
Sabatier Reactor Catalyst [67]	Facilitates the reaction of COâ‚‚ with Hâ‚‚ to produce water and methane, closing the oxygen loop.	A critical model for catalytic processes in closed-loop systems, with implications for in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) in pharmaceutical and biomanufacturing contexts.
Deinococcus radiodurans [49]	Extremophilic bacterium studied on the ISS for its remarkable resistance to environmental hazards.	Serves as a model organism for studying biological integrity and preservation strategies under extreme stress, informing biopreservation media development [68].
Biopreservation Media (e.g., CryoStor) [68]	A GMP-compatible, defined-formulation medium designed to protect cell integrity and viability during freezing and thawing.	Directly relevant to maintaining the "biological components" in life support research; a commercial solution for ensuring cellular viability analogous to ECLSS maintaining crew health [68] [69].
Bioprocess Containers & Fluid Management Systems [68] [69]	Single-use, closed-system bags and assemblies for cell culture and fluid handling in biomanufacturing.	These systems provide the physical containment and sterility required for sensitive biological processes, mirroring the closed-loop, contamination-sensitive nature of the ECLSS.

The operational history of the ISS ECLSS provides a master class in the reliability engineering and maintenance logistics of complex, integrated biological systems. Key lessons emerge: the necessity of redundancy (e.g., multiple O₂ sources), the inevitability of iterative design through failure analysis (e.g., UPA centrifuge), and the critical importance of closed-loop processes (e.g., ACLS) for long-term sustainability. For researchers in biopreservation and therapeutic development, these principles are directly transferable. The pursuit of stabilizing living cells—whether human therapeutics in a cryovial or microorganisms in a life support reactor—demands the same rigorous systems-thinking, robust reagent design, and proactive maintenance planning exemplified by the engineering marvel that keeps astronauts alive in space.

In long-duration space missions and isolated habitats, maintaining crew psychological well-being is as critical as ensuring physical health. The confinement, monotony, and immense pressure of extreme environments can significantly impact crew dynamics and mission success. Research from space analogs consistently demonstrates that the first 2-6 weeks represent a period of acute adaptation to extreme living conditions, typically associated with stress development [70]. This article examines the efficacy of different psychological assessment frameworks within the context of biological life support systems research, comparing their application, measurement approaches, and suitability for monitoring crew well-being in confined environments. As we progress toward establishing lunar bases and Martian outposts, understanding these psychological dimensions within biologically-supported habitats becomes increasingly vital for mission planning and crew selection.

Comparative Analysis of Psychological Assessment Frameworks

The table below summarizes the core characteristics of prominent psychological well-being assessment tools utilized in extreme environment research:

Table 1: Comparison of Psychological Well-being Assessment Frameworks

Assessment Tool	Core Dimensions Measured	Application in Extreme Environments	Data Collection Methodology	Key Findings from Studies
Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-being (SPWB) [71] [72] [73]	Self-acceptance, Positive relations with others, Autonomy, Environmental mastery, Purpose in life, Personal growth [73]	Used in terrestrial analogs (Antarctica, chamber studies) to assess positive functioning and adaptation [70]	42-item or 18-item questionnaire with 6-point Likert scale; self-administered [73]	Personal growth linked to openness; positive relations linked to agreeableness; smoking predicted lower purpose in life [73]
Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI) [74]	Anxiety, Depression, Positive well-being, Self-control, General health, Vitality [74]	Assessed stress in isolated seafarers on merchant ships [74]	Self-report questionnaire with 100% response rate in shipboard administration [74]	Engine officers showed higher anxiety than deck crew; >50% scored in 'well-being' range; 3% reported severe distress [74]
Profile of Mood States (POMS) [70]	Tension-Anxiety, Depression-Dejection, Anger-Hostility, Vigor-Activity, Fatigue-Inertia, Confusion-Bewilderment [70]	Used for astronauts and in chamber experiments (e.g., ESKIS) to track mood changes [70]	Administered pre-, post-, and multiple times during isolation (e.g., MD2, MD6, MD9, MD13) [70]	Mood and sleep disturbances detected under isolation and crowding; pre-isolation period particularly stressful [70]
Spielberger's State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) [70]	State Anxiety (transient), Trait Anxiety (stable characteristic) [70]	Monitoring anxiety levels in various extreme conditions and model experiments [70]	Applied multiple times during confinement to track situational anxiety fluctuations [70]	Increased anxiety levels during first days of isolation; crowding and lack of privacy contributed to stress [70]

Experimental Protocols for Psychological Monitoring in Confinement Studies

ESKIS Chamber Experiment Protocol

The ESKIS (Experiment with Short-Term Isolation) study provides a representative protocol for investigating psychological adaptation to confinement and crowding [70]. The methodology was designed to simulate spacecraft conditions with high fidelity.

3.1.1 Experimental Design and Habitat

• Duration: 14-day isolation period [70]
• Crew Composition: 6 subjects (4 males, 2 females) with minimal prior isolation experience [70]
• Habitat Specifications: 50 m³ chamber (18 m² living space) with limited furniture including folding tables/chairs, stationary workstations, and fewer berths than crew members [70]
• Environmental Stressors: Sensory deprivation, monotony, crowding, lack of privacy, limited social contacts [70]

3.1.2 Psychological Assessment Schedule

• Pre-/Post-Isolation: Keirsey Temperament Sorter, Rokeach value-orientation test, PSPA (Personal Self-Perception and Attitudes) [70]
• During Isolation (MD1-MD14):
  • POMS: Days 2, 6, 9, 13 [70]
  • Sociometric questionnaire: Days 1, 6, 13 [70]
  • PSPA: Days 6, 13 [70]
  • Daily planning conferences (morning/evening) [70]
• Actigraphy: Continuous monitoring using Garmin Fenix 6X and ActiGraph wGT3X-BT devices with ActiLife software analyzing sleep quality via Cole-Kripke algorithm [70]

3.1.3 Experimental Workflow The following diagram illustrates the sequential workflow of the ESKIS experimental protocol:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential Materials for Psychological Research in Confinement Studies

Item/Instrument	Primary Function	Application Context	Key Features
Actigraphy Devices (Garmin Fenix 6X, ActiGraph wGT3X-BT) [70]	Objective monitoring of motor activity and sleep-wake patterns	Continuous wear during isolation periods to quantify physiological correlates of stress	Non-invasive data collection; Cole-Kripke algorithm for sleep analysis; long battery life [70]
Psychological Well-being Scales (Ryff's SPWB) [73]	Multidimensional assessment of positive psychological functioning	Pre-post intervention designs; longitudinal studies of adaptation	6-factor model (42-item/18-item versions); high test-retest reliability (0.81-0.88) [73]
Profile of Mood States (POMS) [70]	Transient affective states measurement	Repeated administration during confinement to track mood fluctuations	Validated for astronaut populations; sensitive to isolation effects; multiple subscales [70]
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) [70]	Differentiate situational vs. dispositional anxiety	Monitoring anxiety responses to confinement stressors	Two-component structure; validated in extreme environments; sensitive to privacy violations [70]
Personal Self-Perception and Attitudes (PSPA) Software [70]	Analyze interpersonal dynamics and group cohesion	Mapping psychological distances between crew members in confined spaces	Based on personal construct theory; quantifies perceived similarity/dissimilarity [70]

Efficacy Analysis of Biological System Components on Psychological Outcomes

Impact of Habitat Design on Psychological Well-being

The physical characteristics of closed ecological life support systems directly influence multiple dimensions of psychological well-being. The ESKIS experiment demonstrated that limited personal space (50 m³ for 6 crew) and lack of privacy significantly increased anxiety levels, particularly during the initial adaptation phase [70]. This aligns with Altman's privacy regulation theory, where unwanted boundary penetrations in confined environments trigger stress responses measurable through both self-report (STAI, POMS) and physiological monitoring (actigraphy) [70]. The finding that extroverted individuals coped better by seeking social support suggests habitat designs should incorporate both communal areas and private retreats to accommodate different personality types [70].

Biological Life Support Components as Psychological Countermeasures

The integration of biological systems in life support infrastructure may offer unexpected psychological benefits beyond their primary life support functions. Studies from the Bios-3 facility revealed that plant compartments (phytotrons) not only regenerated atmosphere and produced food but potentially provided visual stimulation that counteracted sensory deprivation [13]. Similarly, the Yuegong-1 (Lunar Palace 1) facility demonstrated that cultivating cereals, vegetables, and strawberries using high-efficiency plant cultivation equipment provided meaningful occupational engagement in addition to nutritional and atmospheric benefits [13]. The presence of biological systems appears to address multiple Ryff dimensions including environmental mastery through active engagement with life support processes and personal growth through learning new skills [73].

The efficacy of biological components in life support systems extends beyond their technical performance to encompass significant psychological dimensions that directly impact crew well-being. Assessment frameworks like Ryff's Scales, PGWBI, and POMS provide validated methodologies for quantifying these effects across multiple psychological domains. Research consistently demonstrates that successful adaptation to confined environments depends on both physical habitat parameters and psychosocial factors, with biological system integration offering potential benefits for mood, stress reduction, and cognitive function. Future life support research should employ integrated protocols that simultaneously monitor biological system performance and psychological well-being metrics to optimize both technical and human factors in long-duration space missions.

For long-duration human space exploration missions beyond Low Earth Orbit, environmental control and life support systems must achieve unprecedented levels of self-sufficiency through optimal mass and energy utilization [6]. These systems face the critical challenge of balancing resource regeneration against the costs of resupply from Earth, with the degree of closure defined as the percentage of total required resources provided by recycling [6]. As missions reach farther from Earth, the technical and economic feasibility of resupply diminishes, making system closure increasingly essential [2]. This comparison guide examines the efficacy of biological and physicochemical systems in achieving this balance, providing researchers with experimental data and methodologies for evaluating these complementary approaches to life support.

Physicochemical Life Support Systems

Physicochemical systems employ traditional engineering methods including filtration, distillation, and oxidation to maintain habitable environments [6]. The International Space Station's Environmental Control and Life Support System represents the current state-of-the-art, incorporating water processing assemblies that recover potable water from urine, humidity condensate, and wastewaters, achieving approximately 85% water recovery rates [75]. Atmosphere revitalization combines carbon dioxide removal via adsorption, oxygen generation through water electrolysis, and a Sabatier system that produces water from recovered COâ‚‚ and hydrogen [75]. These systems provide reliable, high-purity output but face challenges with resource losses, such as methane venting in the Sabatier process representing loss of valuable resources [75].

Bioregenerative Life Support Systems

Bioregenerative Life Support Systems incorporate biological elements to create artificial ecosystems where organisms' wastes become resources for other compartments [2]. These systems comprise three main functional groups: biological producers (plants, microalgae, photosynthetic bacteria), consumers (crew), and waste degraders and recyclers (fermentative and nitrifying bacteria) [2]. BLSS aim to achieve higher closure rates by regenerating resources through biological processes, with China's "Lunar Palace 365" experiment demonstrating Earth-based closed human survival for a year with a material closure of >98% [37]. These systems provide additional benefits including fresh food production and psychological support for crews through horticultural therapy [2].

Comparative Performance Analysis

Mass and Resource Utilization Comparison

Table 1: Mass and Resource Requirements for One Crewmember per Day [6]

Resource	Requirement	PCSS Processing	BLSS Processing
Oxygen	0.636-1 kg/day	Electrolysis of water	Photosynthesis by plants/microalgae
Food (dry)	0.5-0.863 kg/day	Resupplied from Earth	Produced by crops/microalgae
Potable Water	2.27-3.63 kg/day	~85% recovery [75]	Transpiration by plants
Hygiene Water	1.36-9 kg/day	~85% recovery [75]	Transpiration by plants

Table 2: System-Level Performance Metrics

Parameter	Physicochemical Systems	Bioregenerative Systems
Closure Degree	Limited (ISS: ~85% water recovery) [75]	High (Lunar Palace: >98%) [37]
Technology Readiness	High (flight-proven on ISS) [76]	Medium (ground demonstrations) [37] [2]
Crew Time Requirements	High maintenance documented [76]	Variable (depends on automation)
System Complexity	High (many mechanical components) [77]	Very high (biological + technical systems) [77]
Food Production	None (requires resupply)	Integrated production capability

Energy Efficiency and Thermal Considerations

Energy requirements significantly impact overall system mass, particularly for power generation and thermal management. Physicochemical systems typically exhibit high power density but generate substantial thermal loads that must be rejected in the space environment [6]. Biological systems utilize solar energy for photosynthesis but require artificial lighting in space environments, creating significant energy demands for plant growth facilities [2]. The energy equivalence of resupply versus recycling must be calculated for each mission scenario, with breakeven points determining the optimal system architecture.

Experimental Protocols for System Evaluation

Structural Entropy Methodology for Complexity Assessment

The Structural Entropy Method provides quantitative evaluation of system complexity, which correlates with maintenance requirements, failure rates, and crew time demands [77]. This methodology involves:

• System Decomposition: Break down the life support system into elements (nodes) and their interactions (edges)

• Timeliness Entropy Calculation (H₁):

  • Determine shortest path (Láµ¢,â±¼) between all element pairs
  • Calculate realization probability: p₁(i,j) = Láµ¢,â±¼/N₁ where N₁ = ΣΣLáµ¢,â±¼
  • Compute timeliness entropy: H₁(i,j) = -p₁(i,j)logâ‚‚p₁(i,j)

• Quality Entropy Calculation (Hâ‚‚):

  • Identify directly connected elements (Káµ¢) for each node
  • Calculate realization probability: pâ‚‚(i) = Káµ¢/Nâ‚‚ where Nâ‚‚ = ΣKáµ¢
  • Compute quality entropy: Hâ‚‚(i) = -pâ‚‚(i)logâ‚‚pâ‚‚(i)

• Order Degree Determination:

  • Calculate timeliness order degree: R₁ = 1 - H₁/H₁ₘ
  • Calculate quality order degree: Râ‚‚ = 1 - Hâ‚‚/H₂ₘ
  • Determine comprehensive order degree: R = αR₁ + βRâ‚‚ (α + β = 1) [77]

This method has demonstrated that systems with higher order degrees (R) exhibit lower operational complexity and reduced crew maintenance requirements.

Bioregenerative System Experimental Protocol

Ground-based testing of BLSS components follows standardized protocols:

• Module Design: Construct controlled modules with environmental management for temperature, humidity, and artificial light [78]

• Organism Selection: Choose complementary organisms based on:

  • Microgreens: Rapid growth (1-2 weeks), high nutrient density [78]
  • Black Soldier Fly larvae: Organic waste processing with high efficiency [78]
  • Microalgae: Air revitalization and supplemental nutrition [75]

• Resource Flow Monitoring: Track inputs and outputs of energy, gases, and organic/inorganic matter [78]

• Efficiency Metrics Calculation:

  • Volume and biomass requirements
  • Recycling process efficiency
  • Biomass edible fraction percentage [78]

System Resource Flow: This diagram illustrates the interconnected resource flows in a bioregenerative life support system, showing how waste outputs from one compartment become inputs for another.

Hybrid System Optimization Strategies

Integration Approaches

Hybrid life support systems combine the reliability of physicochemical processes with the resource regeneration capabilities of biological systems:

• Supplemental Biological Components: Integrate fast-growing crops (microgreens, leafy greens) with physicochemical water and air recycling to enhance nutrition and psychological benefits without compromising system reliability [2]

• Waste Processing Integration: Employ Black Soldier Fly larvae for efficient organic waste processing, with resultant compost supporting plant growth compartments [78]

• Microalgae Integration: Utilize microalgae bioreactors for simultaneous carbon dioxide removal and oxygen production, with biomass providing supplemental nutrition [75]

Mass Optimization Equations

System mass optimization follows the equation:

Mₜₒₜₐₗ = Mₕₐᵣd𝓌ₐᵣₑ + Mₚₒ𝓌ₑᵣ + Mᵣₑₛᵤₚₚₗ𝓎

Where:

• Mₕₐᵣd𝓌ₐᵣₑ decreases with mission duration for BLSS but remains constant for PCSS
• Mₚₒ𝓌ₑᵣ depends on the energy requirements of each subsystem
• Mᵣₑₛᵤₚₚₗ𝓎 decreases with increasing closure degree but at diminishing returns [6]

The breakeven point where BLSS becomes mass-advantageous occurs when the mass of resupply exceeds the combined mass of biological system infrastructure and its power supply.

Mission Mass Comparison: This visualization shows how system mass requirements change with mission duration, illustrating the breakeven point where biological systems become mass-advantageous over purely physicochemical approaches.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Life Support System Experimentation

Reagent/Organism	Function	Application Context
Chlorella vulgaris	Photosynthetic Oâ‚‚ production, COâ‚‚ removal, biomass production [75]	Microalgae compartment for air revitalization
Arthrospira (Spirulina)	Nutrient-dense biomass production, air revitalization [75]	Supplemental nutrition source
Black Soldier Fly larvae	Organic waste biodegradation with high efficiency [78]	Waste processing compartment
Lactuca sativa (lettuce)	Rapid-growth plant-based food production [2]	Vegetable production unit
Triticum aestivum (wheat)	Staple crop for carbohydrate provision [2]	BLSS for long-duration missions
Controlled environmental chambers	Precise regulation of temperature, humidity, lighting [78]	Ground-based BLSS testing
Structural Entropy Analysis Toolkit	Quantitative complexity evaluation [77]	System architecture optimization

The optimal balance between biological and physicochemical systems depends primarily on mission duration and destination. For short-duration missions (< 1 year), physicochemical systems with supplemental biological components for nutrition and psychological benefits provide the most mass- and energy-efficient solution [2]. For long-duration missions (> 2 years) and planetary outposts, increasingly biological systems with high closure degrees become essential to minimize resupply requirements [37] [6]. Hybrid approaches that leverage the reliability of physicochemical systems with the resource regeneration of carefully selected biological components represent the most promising path forward for human exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit. Future research should focus on quantifying the precise breakeven points for specific mission scenarios and increasing the technology readiness of biological components through integrated ground demonstrations.

Performance Metrics and Cross-System Analysis: Validating Biological Efficacy

The pursuit of sustained human presence in space hinges on the development of advanced life support systems. The strategic approaches taken by the world's leading space agencies—NASA, CNSA, ESA, and Roscosmos—to these critical systems reveal distinct priorities, historical pathways, and levels of investment, particularly in the integration of bioregenerative components. This guide provides an objective comparison of their technological frameworks, supported by experimental data and methodologies, for researchers and scientists in the field.

Strategic Approaches and Historical Context

The architectural philosophy for life support systems varies significantly among the major space agencies, primarily split between reliance on physico-chemical systems and investment in bioregenerative life support systems (BLiSS).

• NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration): NASA's current approach for the International Space Station (ISS) and near-term missions centers on physico-chemical Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) [67]. Historically, NASA pioneered bioregenerative research through programs like the Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS) and the Bioregenerative Planetary Life Support Systems Test Complex (BIO-PLEX) [79]. However, these programs were discontinued after the 2004 Exploration Systems Architecture Study, creating a strategic capability gap. NASA's current focus for its Artemis program is on logistics resupply rather than fully closed-loop bioregenerative systems [79].

• CNSA (China National Space Administration): CNSA has emerged as the global leader in bioregenerative life support systems (BLiSS). It has strategically adopted and advanced the very NASA programs that were discontinued, integrating them with domestic innovation [79]. This is exemplified by the Beijing Lunar Palace (Lunar Palace 1) analog habitat, where CNSA has successfully demonstrated closed-system operations for atmosphere, water, and nutrition, sustaining a crew of four analog taikonauts for a full year [79]. This positions CNSA with a significant lead in biosustainable exploration technologies.

• Roscosmos: The Russian space agency's approach, developed through its long-term space station programs from Salyut to Mir and the ISS, relies on a combination of electrolytic oxygen generation (Elektron) and chemical oxygen generators (Vika/SFOG) [67]. Their systems are predominantly physico-chemical, with a proven track record but facing challenges with reliability and maintenance, as evidenced by frequent malfunctions of the Elektron system on the ISS [67].

• ESA (European Space Agency): ESA has pursued a middle path, focusing on advanced physico-chemical system components that enhance closure of the life support loop. Its most notable contribution is the Advanced Closed Loop System (ACLS), a technology demonstrator on the ISS [67]. The ACLS converts carbon dioxide into oxygen and methane via a Sabatier reactor and electrolysis, capable of regenerating enough oxygen for three astronauts and reducing water resupply needs by 400 liters per year [67]. ESA's MELiSSA program is focused on BLiSS component technology but has not approached fully integrated, closed-system human testing [79].

Table 1: Strategic Approach and Historical Context of Agency Life Support Systems

Agency	Primary Life Support Approach	Key Historical Programs & Current Status	Notable Analog habitats / Testbeds
NASA	Physico-chemical (ECLSS); Resupply-dependent	CELSS, BIO-PLEX (discontinued) [79]; Current ISS ECLSS operations [67]	BIO-PLEX (decommissioned) [79]
CNSA	Bioregenerative (BLiSS)	Adoption and advancement of discontinued NASA programs; sustained BLiSS investment [79]	Beijing Lunar Palace (successful 1-year crewed mission) [79]
Roscosmos	Physico-chemical	Elektron, Vozdukh, Vika/SFOG; extensive operational history on Mir and ISS [67]	N/A (Information not provided in search results)
ESA	Advanced Physico-chemical / BLiSS components	Advanced Closed Loop System (ACLS) on ISS [67]; MELiSSA program (BLiSS components) [79]	N/A (Information not provided in search results)

System Architectures and Key Technologies

The core technological implementations reflect the strategic choices of each agency, with varying levels of system closure and technological maturity.

• NASA ECLSS (ISS): The system on the U.S. segment of the ISS is a complex integration of several subsystems [67].

  • Water Recovery System: Comprises a Urine Processor Assembly (UPA) that uses vacuum distillation and a centrifuge, and a Water Processor Assembly (WPA) that employs filtration and a catalytic reactor to produce potable water. The system is designed to recover about 85% of water, though operational recovery is around 70% due to issues with calcium precipitation in microgravity [67].
  • Oxygen Generation System (OGS): Electrolyzes water to produce oxygen for the cabin and hydrogen, which was historically vented overboard [67].
  • Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA): Uses zeolite beds to scrub CO2 from the cabin atmosphere [67].
  • Sabatier System: (Used from 2010-2017) Reacted waste hydrogen from the OGS with CO2 to produce water and methane, partially closing the oxygen loop [67].

• CNSA BLiSS (Beijing Lunar Palace): CNSA's system is a highly integrated, bioregenerative architecture. While specific technical components of the Lunar Palace are not detailed in the search results, the overall achievement of closing the loop on atmosphere, water, and nutrition for a crew of four for one year indicates a sophisticated integration of higher plant cultivation, waste processing, and air revitalization using biological systems [79].

• Roscosmos Life Support (ISS): The Russian segment employs a suite of systems [67].

  • Elektron: An electrolytic oxygen generator similar to NASA's OGS, but historically prone to failures, forcing crews to rely on backups [67].
  • Vozdukh: A system that uses regenerable absorbers to remove carbon dioxide from the cabin air [67].
  • Vika / SFOG: A solid-fuel oxygen generator using lithium perchlorate canisters, serving as a backup oxygen source. Each canister can supply one crewmember for one day [67].

• ESA Advanced Closed Loop System (ACLS): This rack on the ISS represents a significant step forward in physico-chemical system closure [67].

  • Carbon Dioxide Concentration Assembly (CCA): Uses an amine scrubber to remove and concentrate CO2.
  • Carbon Dioxide Reprocessing Assembly (CRA): A Sabatier reactor that converts 50% of the captured CO2 with hydrogen into water and methane.
  • Oxygen Generation Assembly (OGA): Electrolyzes the water produced by the CRA to generate oxygen.

The following diagram illustrates the core workflows of a physico-chemical system (like NASA's ECLSS or ESA's ACLS) versus a bioregenerative system (like CNSA's Lunar Palace).

Experimental Data and Performance Metrics

Quantitative data on system performance is critical for evaluating efficacy. The following table summarizes key metrics for different life support technologies.

Table 2: Performance Metrics of Life Support System Components

Agency / System	Technology / Experiment	Key Performance Metric	Result / Output
NASA (ISS ECLSS)	Water Recovery System [67]	Water Recovery Rate (Design)	85%
NASA (ISS ECLSS)	Water Recovery System [67]	Water Recovery Rate (Operational, due to calcium)	~70%
NASA (ISS ECLSS)	Urine Processor Assembly [67]	Daily Processing Capacity	9 kg/day
ESA (ACLS on ISS)	Advanced Closed Loop System [67]	Oxygen Regeneration Capacity	For 3 astronauts
ESA (ACLS on ISS)	Advanced Closed Loop System [67]	Annual Water Resupply Reduction	400 liters
CNSA (Lunar Palace)	Integrated BLiSS [79]	Crewed Mission Duration	1 year (4 crew)
Roscosmos	Vika / SFOG [67]	Oxygen Supply per Canister	1 crewmember for 1 day

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear framework for scientists, this section outlines the methodology for a key experiment relevant to bioregenerative life support.

Protocol: Investigating Plant Responses to Elevated CO2 in a Mars Habitat Simulation

This protocol is derived from research that leveraged decades of plant response data and agent-based modeling to explore the impact of elevated CO2 on food production and life support in a closed ecosystem [80].

1. Objective: To quantify the impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 (eCO2) on plant CO2 sequestration, transpiration rates, edible biomass yield, and nutrient composition within a simulated Mars habitat, and to observe the cascading effects on mechanical life support system loads.

2. Experimental Setup:

• Modeling Platform: Utilize an agent-based model such as SIMOC for high-fidelity simulations of Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) and bioregenerative processes [80].
• Scenarios Definition: Configure multiple simulation scenarios with varying combinations of virtual crew members, ECLSS components (e.g., CO2 scrubbers, oxygen generators), and different combinations of crop species (e.g., lettuce, wheat, potato).
• Independent Variable: Set and maintain different target ambient CO2 levels (e.g., 400 ppm, 800 ppm, 1200 ppm) across simulation runs. The ECLSS components in the model are programmed to add or remove CO2 as necessary to maintain these target levels [80].

3. Procedure: 1. For each predefined scenario, initialize the agent-based model with all system parameters. 2. Run the simulation for a defined mission duration (e.g., 300 days) at a specific target CO2 level. 3. Repeat the simulation for each target CO2 level across all scenarios. 4. During each run, continuously log time-series data on: * Plant Metrics: CO2 absorption rate, water vapor transpiration rate, edible biomass production (yield), and nutrient content of the biomass. * System Metrics: Power consumption of ECLSS components (especially CO2 scrubbers and O2 generators), water recycling load, and overall system closure.

4. Data Analysis: 1. Compare the output data across different CO2 levels for each scenario. 2. Perform statistical analysis to determine the significance of eCO2 on yield increases and reductions in transpiration. 3. Model the cascading effects, such as the reduced power demand from decreased operation of physico-chemical air and water processing systems due to enhanced plant function [80].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

For researchers replicating or building upon BLiSS experiments, the following reagents, models, and systems are fundamental.

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for BLiSS Development

Item / Solution	Function in BLiSS Research
SIMOC Agent-Based Model	A computational platform for high-fidelity simulation of ECLSS and bioregenerative components, allowing for the exploration of parameter spaces and system-level interactions without full-scale physical testing [80].
Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) Chambers	Ground-based analog habitats or growth chambers that provide precise control over atmospheric composition (O2, CO2), temperature, humidity, light cycles, and nutrient delivery for plant growth studies [79].
Advanced Water Processor Assembly	A system, such as the one on the ISS, used to test and validate water recycling from urine and humidity condensate using processes like vacuum distillation and catalytic oxidation [67].
Sabatier Reactor	A key physico-chemical component that converts carbon dioxide and hydrogen into water and methane, thereby closing part of the carbon-oxygen cycle. Used in systems like ESA's ACLS and previously in NASA's ECLSS [67].
Lithium Perchlorate (in Vika/SFOG)	The solid fuel in chemical oxygen generators that decomposes thermally to produce breathable oxygen, serving as a critical backup system on crewed spacecraft like those used by Roscosmos [67].
Amine Scrubber (in ESA's ACLS)	A technology for actively removing and concentrating carbon dioxide from the cabin atmosphere, which is a critical first step for its subsequent processing (e.g., by a Sabatier reactor or by plants) [67].

The efficacy of Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) is paramount for sustaining human life during long-duration space missions. Unlike the Physicochemical (PC) systems currently employed on the International Space Station, BLSS leverages biological processes to regenerate vital resources, aiming for a higher degree of closure and self-sufficiency [81]. The performance of these systems is quantitatively assessed through key metrics such as oxygen production, food yield, and water recycling rates. This guide provides a comparative analysis of the quantitative performance of different biological components within life support system research, presenting structured experimental data and methodologies to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals engaged in this interdisciplinary field.

Performance Metrics and Comparative Analysis

The performance of life support technologies is most commonly evaluated using Equivalent System Mass (ESM), a metric that converts all system inputs—such as mass, volume, power, and cooling—into a single, comparable mass value [82]. For biological systems, performance is further quantified by measuring the output of essential life support commodities. The table below compares the performance of different system approaches.

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Life Support System Technologies

System / Component	Primary Function	Key Quantitative Metric	Reported Performance Value	Notes & Context
ISS ECLSS (Physicochemical) [81]	Water Recycling	Water Recovery Efficiency	85%	Applies to urine processor assembly; requires consumables.
ISS ECLSS (Physicochemical) [81]	Oxygen Generation	Oxygen Production Method	Electrolysis of recovered water	Relies on Earth-supplied water or water from WRS.
Higher Plant Cultivation (CELSS) [83] [84]	Food Production & Air Revitalization	Plant Area Required per Person	40 m²	Scenario for 90% food closure on a lunar base.
Higher Plant Cultivation (CELSS) [83] [84]	Biomass Production	Dry Biomass Production Rate	1250 g/person/day	Terrestrial day; based on 40 m² area under 250-300 W/m² PAR.
Higher Plant Cultivation (CELSS) [83]	Water Recycling	Transpiration Rate	Variable, can be optimized	Can be scaled to recycle water, reducing area and energy needs.
MELiSSA Loop (BLSS) [81]	Nitrogen Recovery	Source	Urine (85% of recoverable N)	Target: 7-16 g N/crew member/day for fertilizer production.

Analysis of Comparative Data

The data reveals a fundamental trade-off between the technological maturity of Physicochemical (PC) systems and the regenerative potential of Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS). The ISS's ECLSS demonstrates high efficiency in water recycling but fails to address food production, creating a critical dependency on Earth resupply [81]. In contrast, plant-based CELSS concepts show the capability to address the full suite of life support needs—air, water, and food—simultaneously. However, this comes at the cost of significant infrastructure requirements, quantified as approximately 40 m² of plant growth area per person to achieve near-food closure [84]. The productivity of this area is substantial, estimated at 1250 grams of dry biomass per day [84]. Furthermore, plant systems are dynamic; growing conditions can be manipulated to favor either maximum food production or maximum water transpiration, allowing for system optimization based on mission-specific priorities [83]. The MELiSSA BLSS highlights the importance of nutrient recycling, identifying human urine as the primary source of recoverable nitrogen, a crucial element for fertilizing plant growth and completing the ecological loop [81].

Experimental Protocols for BLSS Research

Robust experimental protocols are essential for generating the quantitative data required to compare BLSS technologies. The following methodologies are foundational to the field.

Protocol for Closed-Chamber Plant Growth and Metric Analysis

This protocol is used to measure the oxygen production, carbon dioxide sequestration, water transpiration, and biomass yield of candidate plant species in a controlled environment.

• System Setup: Utilize a hermetically sealed growth chamber equipped with controlled LED lighting, temperature, humidity, and atmospheric gas monitoring sensors (e.g., for Oâ‚‚ and COâ‚‚). The SVET greenhouse used aboard the Mir space station is an example of such a facility [85].
• Plant Cultivation: Select and plant seeds (e.g., wheat, Brassica rapa) in a growth substrate. Nutrient delivery can be via hydroponic or solid-medium systems. The chamber atmosphere is continuously monitored.
• Data Collection:
  • Gas Exchange: Track daily fluctuations in COâ‚‚ and Oâ‚‚ concentrations within the closed chamber to calculate net photosynthetic and respiratory rates.
  • Water Transpiration: Measure the mass of the water reservoir before and after the growth period. Condensate from the chamber's air circulation system can also be collected and measured to close the water balance.
  • Biomass Yield: Upon plant maturation and seed set (a full "seed-to-seed" cycle), harvest the plants. The edible and inedible biomass is separated, dried, and weighed to determine total dry mass production [85].
• Data Analysis: Key performance metrics are calculated, including the Equivalent System Mass (ESM), which integrates the mass, volume, power, and cooling requirements of the entire system into a single figure of merit for comparison [82].

Protocol for Nitrogen Recovery from Urine via Nitrification

This protocol details the process for converting urea and ammonium in human urine into nitrate, a preferred nitrogen fertilizer for plants.

• Urine Collection and Stabilization: Collect human urine and chemically stabilize it to prevent urea hydrolysis and ammonia volatilization during storage. On the ISS, this is achieved by acidification with phosphoric acid (H₃POâ‚„) and the addition of a hexavalent chromium (Cr⁶⁺) oxidant [81].
• Inoculation and Bioreactor Operation: In a controlled bioreactor (representing a compartment like MELiSSA's Compartment III), introduce a defined microbial consortium containing nitrifying bacteria (e.g., Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter spp.) [81].
• Process Monitoring: Continuously monitor key water quality parameters, including:
  • Urea and Ammonium (NH₄⁺) Concentration: Track the decrease as ureolysis and nitrification proceed.
  • Nitrite (NO₂⁻) and Nitrate (NO₃⁻) Concentration: Track the production of the desired end-product.
  • pH: Monitor closely, as nitrification is a pH-sensitive process.
• Product Utilization: The output stream, now rich in nitrate, can be used as a liquid fertilizer for hydroponic plant growth experiments, thereby closing the nitrogen loop.

The logical workflow for these integrated biological processes is outlined in the diagram below.

Diagram 1: Simplified Material Flow in a BLSS.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Materials

Research in BLSS requires a specialized set of reagents and materials to simulate, monitor, and control closed ecological environments.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for BLSS Experiments

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Experimental Context
Hydroponic Nutrient Solution	Provides essential minerals (N, P, K, etc.) for plant growth in the absence of soil.	Used in plant growth compartments (e.g., CELSS, MELiSSA higher plant chamber) to cultivate crops [84] [86].
Nitrifying Bacterial Consortium	Bio-catalyzes the conversion of toxic ammonia (from urine) into plant-usable nitrate.	Inoculum for bioreactors (e.g., MELiSSA Comp. III) dedicated to nitrogen recovery [81].
Chemical Stabilizers (H₃PO₄, Cr⁶⁺)	Acidifies and oxidizes urine to prevent urea hydrolysis, scaling, and ammonia volatilization during storage.	Used in urine collection and processing subsystems, as on the ISS UPA and in BLSS ground prototypes [81].
Controlled Environment Chamber	A sealed enclosure that allows precise control and monitoring of light, temperature, humidity, and atmospheric composition.	Foundational infrastructure for all plant growth and gas exchange experiments in space-analog conditions [85].
Gas Analyzers (Oâ‚‚, COâ‚‚)	Precisely monitors the concentrations of oxygen and carbon dioxide in real-time within closed chambers.	Critical for measuring photosynthetic and respiratory rates of plants or entire ecosystems [83] [85].

The quantitative comparison of performance metrics reveals that Bioregenerative Life Support Systems represent a paradigm shift from resource recycling to full regeneration. While current physicochemical systems like the ISS ECLSS achieve high water recovery, they cannot produce food and rely on Earth for resupply, making them suboptimal for long-duration missions [81]. The integration of higher plants and microbial processes creates a pathway toward sustainable life support, capable of simultaneous oxygen production, food yield, and water purification [83] [84]. The performance of these biological components, measured through rigorous experimental protocols and standardized metrics like Equivalent System Mass, provides a clear research direction. Future work must focus on optimizing the interactions between these biological components, hardening the technologies for the space environment, and further closing the loops on all vital resources, particularly nitrogen, to enable the next era of human space exploration.

Within the context of developing advanced life support systems (ALS) for long-duration space exploration, a critical challenge lies in selecting biological components that offer high nutritional value while minimizing resource consumption [36] [6]. The efficacy of these systems hinges on a delicate balance between the outputs—nutrition for crew consumption, oxygen regeneration, and waste recycling—and the inputs, such as energy, water, and growth substrates [87]. This guide provides an objective comparison of candidate species, namely cyanobacteria, black soldier fly larvae, and higher plants, by synthesizing experimental data on their nutritional profiles and resource demands. The analysis is framed within the broader thesis that optimizing life support systems requires an integrative understanding of species-specific trade-offs between their functional efficacy and their total resource burden.

Comparative Nutritional and Resource Analysis

The following tables synthesize quantitative data on the nutritional output and resource requirements of key biological species considered for life support systems.

Table 1: Comparative Nutritional Profile of Candidate Species (per kg of Dry Biomass)

Nutrient Component	Cyanobacteria [36]	Black Soldier Fly Larvae (BSFL) [88]	Higher Plants (Reference)
Crude Protein (%)	High (Specific range N/A)	41% - 54%	Variable by species
Lipids/Fats (%)	Not Specified	11.8% - 41.7%	Variable by species
Key Minerals	Oxygen Output	Calcium, Phosphorus	Potassium, Nitrogen, Phosphorus
Primary Outputs	Oxygen, Nutritional Supplement, Biofuel precursor	Protein, Fat, Biomass for feed	Food, Oxygen, Water Vapor

Table 2: Resource Utilization and Growth Efficiency Comparison

Parameter	Cyanobacteria [36]	Black Soldier Fly Larvae (BSFL) [88]	Higher Plants [89]
Substrate/Food Source	Inorganic compounds (COâ‚‚), Lunar/Martian regolith	Low-grade organic waste (manure, food waste)	Soil, Nutrients (N, P, K), COâ‚‚
Daily Consumption	Not Specified	2 - 6.5 x body mass	Dependent on species & growth stage
Growth Rate	High (exact metric N/A)	High (Short life cycle ~41 days)	Moderate to Slow
Protein Conversion Efficiency	Not Specified	More efficient than broilers, pigs, and fish	Lower than animal-based converters
Unique Advantage	Atmospheric revitalization (Oâ‚‚ production, COâ‚‚ fixation)	High efficiency in converting waste to high-quality protein	Direct food production, psychological benefits for crew

Experimental Protocols for Efficacy Assessment

Evaluating candidate species for life support systems requires standardized methodologies to generate comparable data. Below are detailed protocols for key analyses.

Protocol for Nutritional Biomass Analysis

This protocol is designed to quantify the nutritional output of biomass produced by candidate organisms [88].

• Sample Preparation: Harvest biomass (e.g., cyanobacteria, BSFL, plant leaves) and immediately freeze-dry to a constant weight. Homogenize the dried material into a fine powder using a sterile mortar and pestle or a laboratory mill.
• Proximate Analysis:
  • Crude Protein: Determine nitrogen content using the Kjeldahl method or Dumas combustion. Calculate crude protein content using a species-specific conversion factor (e.g., N × 6.25 for most organisms).
  • Lipids: Extract lipids using a Soxhlet apparatus with a non-polar solvent like petroleum ether. Measure total fat content by gravimetric analysis after solvent evaporation.
  • Ash: Incinerate a known weight of sample in a muffle furnace at 550°C for several hours until constant weight is achieved, representing mineral content.
• Fatty Acid Profiling: Transesterify extracted lipids to fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs) and analyze via gas chromatography (GC) with a flame ionization detector (FID).
• Amino Acid Profiling: Hydrolyze protein samples with hydrochloric acid and analyze the constituent amino acids using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

Protocol for Resource Utilization Efficiency

This protocol measures how efficiently a species converts input resources into biomass [36] [88].

• System Setup: Establish controlled environment chambers (e.g., photobioreactors for cyanobacteria, growth bins for BSFL, hydroponic systems for plants) with precise monitoring of temperature, humidity, and light (if applicable).
• Controlled Feeding/Growth: Provide a precisely measured quantity of input substrate.
  • For cyanobacteria: Introduce a defined gaseous mix (e.g., COâ‚‚ in Nâ‚‚) and a liquid growth medium with known nutrient concentrations [36].
  • For BSFL: Provide a known mass of organic waste substrate (e.g., 100g of calibrated food waste) [88].
  • For plants: Utilize a hydroponic nutrient solution with documented concentrations of macro- and micronutrients [89].
• Data Collection:
  • Input Tracking: Monitor and record the mass of all substrates, water, and energy inputs throughout the growth cycle.
  • Output Tracking: At the end of the experiment, harvest all biomass and measure fresh and dry weight.
  • Gas Exchange: For photosynthetic organisms and BSFL, monitor Oâ‚‚ production and COâ‚‚ consumption rates using gas analyzers.
• Efficiency Calculation: Calculate key metrics such as Biomass Conversion Ratio (BCR = Biomass Output / Substrate Input) and Protein Conversion Efficiency.

Visualization of Experimental Workflow

The following diagram outlines the logical workflow for the comparative analysis of biological species in life support systems research.

Species Comparison Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful experimentation in life support system research requires specific reagents and equipment. The following table details essential items for the protocols described in this guide.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Experimental Context
Photobioreactor System	Provides controlled environment for cultivation of photosynthetic organisms like cyanobacteria; enables precise control of light, temperature, and gas exchange [36].	Cyanobacteria growth and gas exchange measurement.
Lyophilizer (Freeze Dryer)	Removes water from biological samples under low temperature and pressure, preserving heat-sensitive compounds for accurate nutritional analysis [88].	Sample preparation for proximate analysis.
Soxhlet Extraction Apparatus	Continuously extracts lipids from a solid sample using an organic solvent, which is crucial for determining fat content and fatty acid profiles [88].	Lipid analysis in nutritional profiling.
Gas Chromatograph (GC)	Separates and analyzes compounds that can be vaporized without decomposition; used for detailed fatty acid profiling post-lipid extraction [88].	Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) analysis.
High-Performance Liquid Chromatograph (HPLC)	Separates, identifies, and quantifies each component in a mixture with high precision; used for amino acid analysis after protein hydrolysis [88].	Amino acid profiling.
Kjeldahl/Dumas Apparatus	Determines the nitrogen content of organic samples, which is the foundational measurement for calculating crude protein content [88].	Protein content analysis.
Controlled Environment Chambers	Enclosed growth spaces (e.g., for insects or plants) that allow precise regulation of temperature, humidity, and light cycles, standardizing growth conditions [88].	BSFL and plant growth studies.

The global pursuit of advanced Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) for deep space exploration reveals a strategic landscape marked by distinct national capabilities and focus areas. While the United States maintains strong foundational research and technology development, comprehensive ground-based testing with human crews is increasingly dominated by international partners, notably China and the collective efforts of the European-led MELiSSA program. This assessment objectively compares the experimental efficacy of different biological components integral to BLSS, highlighting critical quantitative performance data and the methodological protocols that underpin current global research initiatives. The analysis identifies a concentrated focus on plant and microbial compartments as the cornerstones for closing material loops and providing essential life support functions.

International BLSS Competitiveness Landscape

The strategic development of BLSS is critical for long-duration missions to the Moon and Mars, where resupply from Earth is not feasible. The global landscape is characterized by significant public investment in ground-based demonstrators and a focus on integrating biological components to regenerate oxygen, water, and food.

Table: Global BLSS Research Initiatives and Key Characteristics [2]

Country/Region	Key Facilities / Programs	Reported Closures & Durations	Primary Biological Components	Notable Achievements
USA	Biosphere 2, NASA's LMLSTP, KSC's Biomass Production Chamber, HERA	91-day crewed test (LMLSTP) [2]	Higher plants (crops)	Development of "salad machine" concept; robust plant growth chamber research
China	Lunar Palace 1	365-day human survival test (>98% material closure) [37]	Higher plants, microbes	World record for closed human survival in a ground-based facility
Europe (ESA/MELiSSA)	MELiSSA Pilot Plant (MPP, Spain), PaCMan (Italy)	N/A (Continuous system testing)	Microalgae (e.g., Spirulina), nitrifying bacteria, higher plants	Focus on mechanistic understanding and compartment reliability
Russia	BIOS-1, 2, 3, 3M	Up to 180-day tests in BIOS-3 [90]	Higher plants (e.g., peas, wheat), microalgae (e.g., Chlorella)	Pioneering long-duration BLSS experiments; extensive space-based plant growth data (Mir & ISS)
Japan	Closed Ecology Experiment Facility (CEEF)	N/A	Higher plants, microbes	Integrated testing of closed ecosystem material cycles

Table: Quantitative Performance Metrics of BLSS Biological Components

Biological Component	Key Function(s)	Reported Efficiency / Performance Data	Mission Scenario Applicability
Staple Crops (e.g., Wheat, Potato)	Caloric production, Oâ‚‚ production, COâ‚‚ consumption	Provides carbohydrates, proteins, and fats for basic diet; requires large growing area [2]	Long-duration, planetary outposts
Leafy Greens (e.g., Lettuce, Kale)	Nutrient production, psychological support	Fast-growing, high nutritive value; minimal volume/energy input [2]	Short-duration, LEO missions ("Salad Machine")
Microalgae (e.g., Spirulina, Chlorella)	Oâ‚‚ production, food source, water purification	High Oâ‚‚ production rate per unit volume; can be consumed directly [2]	All mission durations; often paired with other compartments
Nitrifying Bacteria	Waste recycling (ammonia to nitrate)	Converts crew urine and waste into plant-usable nutrients [2]	Essential for all closed-loop systems

Analysis of Key Capability Gaps

The comparison of international programs reveals several critical capability gaps, particularly for the United States.

• Ground Demonstration Scale and Duration: The most significant gap is in the scale and duration of integrated, crewed ground tests. China's "Lunar Palace 365" experiment, which sustained human crews for a year with over 98% material closure, sets a current benchmark that other nations, including the U.S., have not recently matched in a fully bioregenerative system [37]. The U.S.-led Biosphere 2 project was an early pioneer, but recent sustained, multi-year testing has been more prominent internationally.

• Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of Integrated Systems: While U.S. research excels in fundamental studies of individual biological components (e.g., plant growth in specific environments), the integration of these components into a reliable, automated, and flight-ready BLSS lags. The European MELiSSA program employs a structured, engineering-focused approach to raise the TRL of each individual compartment (microbial and plant) before full integration, a methodical strategy that de-risks final system deployment [2].

• Space-Based Validation of Biological Components: The United States, through NASA, has successfully cultivated plants on the International Space Station (ISS). However, Russia has accumulated more extensive long-term data, with experiments on the Mir space station totaling 630 days and in the ISS Russian segment for 820 days [90]. This prolonged microgravity data provides a superior understanding of plant development through multiple generations in space, a critical advantage for mission planning.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

A critical differentiator in BLSS competitiveness is the rigor and focus of experimental protocols. The following methodologies are foundational to advancing the technology readiness of biological subsystems.

Protocol: Higher Plant Cultivation for Food Production and Gas Exchange

Objective: To quantify the biomass production, nutritional output, oxygen production, and water transpiration rates of candidate plant species under controlled environmental conditions analogous to a space habitat.

Methodology Details: [2]

• Plant Selection: Species are selected based on mission scenario.
  • Short-duration (LEO): Fast-growing species like lettuce, kale, or microgreens are chosen for high nutritive value and low resource demands.
  • Long-duration (Planetary): Staple crops (wheat, potato, soy) are selected for caloric and macronutrient production.
• Growth Chamber Setup:
  • Environment: Temperature, humidity, and photoperiod are tightly controlled.
  • Lighting: LED arrays provide specific light recipes (intensities and wavelengths in µmol/m²/s of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)) optimized for photosynthesis and morphology.
  • Nutrient Delivery: A hydroponic or aeroponic system delivers a balanced nutrient solution. The composition (in mg/L of N, P, K, etc.) is monitored and adjusted automatically.
  • Atmosphere: COâ‚‚ concentration is monitored (in ppm) and controlled.
• Data Collection:
  • Biomass: Fresh and dry weight (in grams) of edible and inedible biomass is measured at harvest.
  • Gas Exchange: Net photosynthetic rate (Oâ‚‚ production) and respiration rate (COâ‚‚ production) are measured using gas exchange analysis systems (e.g., IRGA).
  • Water Flux: Transpired water is condensed and measured (in liters) to determine water recycling efficiency.
  • Nutritional Analysis: Proximate analysis (e.g., proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins) is performed on edible biomass.

Diagram: Higher Plant Cultivation Experimental Workflow

Protocol: Microbial Bioreactor Operation for Waste Recycling

Objective: To determine the efficiency and stability of microbial consortia in converting liquid and gaseous human waste into resources (e.g., plant nutrients, clean water, oxygen).

Methodology Details: [2]

• Bioreactor Inoculation: Phototrophic bacteria (e.g., Rhodospirillum rubrum) or algal strains (e.g., Spirulina) are inoculated in sealed, continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTR).
• Feedstock Introduction: Simulated or real human waste (e.g., urine, gray water) is introduced at a controlled rate (e.g., mL/hour). The chemical composition of the feedstock is characterized (e.g., Total Organic Carbon (TOC), ammonia, nitrate levels).
• Process Control:
  • Temperature: Maintained at the optimal range for the specific microbes.
  • pH: Automatically controlled.
  • Lighting (for phototrophs): Illuminated with specific LED wavelengths.
  • Aeration/Gas Flow: Inlet gas (e.g., COâ‚‚ from crew respiration, Hâ‚‚ from other processes) is supplied at a controlled rate.
• Efficiency Monitoring:
  • Liquid Output: The effluent is sampled regularly and analyzed for nutrient content (e.g., nitrate, phosphate in mg/L) and reduction in TOC.
  • Gas Output: Oâ‚‚ production in the off-gas is measured using an oxygen sensor.
  • Biomass Production: Microbial biomass is harvested and can be quantified as a potential food source or recycled.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful BLSS research requires specialized materials and reagents to simulate space conditions, monitor biological processes, and maintain system control.

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for BLSS Experimentation

Item Name	Function/Application	Specific Example / Specification
Controlled Environment Growth Chamber	Precisely regulates all environmental variables for plant growth studies.	Chambers capable of controlling temperature (±0.5°C), humidity (±5%), CO₂ (e.g., 400-5000 ppm), and programmable LED lighting (PAR 0-2000 µmol/m²/s) [2].
Hydroponic/Aeroponic System	Provides water and nutrients to plant roots without soil, maximizing water use efficiency and control.	Systems with recirculating nutrient solutions, pH and EC (Electrical Conductivity) sensors, and automated dosing pumps [2].
Gas Chromatography / IRGA System	Precisely measures gas composition (Oâ‚‚, COâ‚‚) for calculating photosynthetic and respiratory rates of biological components.	Instruments like an Infra-Red Gas Analyzer (IRGA) for real-time, non-destructive measurement of gas exchange fluxes [2].
Defined Microbial Consortia	Inoculum for bioreactors to ensure predictable and efficient waste degradation and resource recovery.	Frozen or lyophilized stocks of well-characterized strains (e.g., nitrifying bacteria, Spirulina, Rhodospirillum rubrum) [2].
Synthetic Waste Streams	Provides a standardized, reproducible feedstock for waste recycling experiments without the variability of real human waste.	Chemically defined solutions mimicking the composition of human urine (e.g., urea, salts) and gray water (e.g., organic acids, surfactants) [2].
Nutrient Media for Plants and Microbes	Supplies essential macro and micronutrients for optimal growth of biological components in closed-loop systems.	Hoagland's solution for plants; specific liquid media (e.g., Zarrouk's medium for Spirulina) for microbes, prepared with high-purity reagents [91].

The strategic assessment of BLSS competitiveness reveals a global field where no single nation holds dominance across all metrics. The United States possesses strong capabilities in fundamental research and component-level technology. However, the current competitive edge in integrated, long-duration, crewed ground demonstrations lies with China, while Europe's methodical, engineering-driven approach through the MELiSSA program positions it as a formidable long-term contender. Russia's extensive historical data from space-based plant experiments remains a unique and valuable asset. For the U.S. to maintain competitiveness and enable future crewed missions to Mars, a renewed focus on closing the gap in large-scale, integrated BLSS ground testing is imperative.

The efficacy of biological components in Bioregenerative Life Support Systems (BLSS) is paramount for supporting long-duration human space exploration. These systems rely on biological processes for critical functions such as air regeneration, water purification, and food production [2]. Evaluating the performance of these biological components requires a move beyond single-method assessments. Integrated multi-omics approaches, particularly the concurrent use of transcriptomic and proteomic analyses, provide a powerful framework for a comprehensive and mechanistic understanding of how these components function under the unique constraints of space environments [92] [93]. This guide objectively compares the performance of transcriptomics and proteomics, detailing their respective strengths, limitations, and synergistic value in BLSS research, supported by experimental data and protocols.

Performance Comparison of Transcriptomic and Proteomic Methodologies

Transcriptomics and proteomics provide distinct yet complementary layers of biological information. The table below summarizes their performance across key metrics relevant to BLSS component analysis.

Table 1: Performance comparison of transcriptomic and proteomic approaches

Feature	Transcriptomics	Proteomics
Analytical Target	RNA molecules (mRNA, non-coding RNA) [92] [93]	Proteins, peptides, and their post-translational modifications [92] [93]
Primary Technology	RNA-Seq, microarrays [92] [94]	Mass spectrometry (MS)-based methods (e.g., LFQ, label-based) [94] [93]
Directly Reflects Functional State	Indirectly; mRNA levels can differ from protein abundance [93]	Directly; proteins are key functional actors [93]
Information on Regulatory Mechanisms	High (e.g., alternative splicing, novel transcripts) [92]	Limited, but provides data on protein activation (e.g., phosphorylation) [92] [93]
Sensitivity	High (can detect low-abundance transcripts)	Can be limited for low-abundance proteins [93]
Throughput & Cost	High throughput, relatively lower cost	Moderate throughput, often higher cost and complexity
Best Use Case in BLSS	Identifying regulatory pathways and initial stress responses [95]	Quantifying functional effectors, enzymes, and structural components [95]

Experimental Protocols for Integrated Multi-Omic Analysis

A standard workflow for integrated transcriptomic and proteomic analysis involves parallel processing of samples from the same biological source to enable direct correlation.

Transcriptomic Profiling via RNA-Seq

The protocol for RNA sequencing is well-established and typically follows these steps, as seen in studies on plants and animal models [95] [96] [94]:

• Total RNA Extraction: Homogenize tissue samples (e.g., plant leaves, microbial cells) using reagents like Trizol. Assess RNA quality and integrity using instruments such as a Bioanalyzer, ensuring an RNA Integrity Number (RIN) > 8.0 for high-quality libraries [94] [97].
• Library Preparation: Purify mRNA using oligo(dT) beads. Fragment the RNA and synthesize cDNA. Ligate sequencing adapters and amplify the library via PCR [94].
• Sequencing: Load the library onto platforms such as the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 for high-throughput paired-end sequencing (e.g., 150 bp reads) [94] [97].
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Process raw reads with tools like fastp to remove adapters and low-quality bases. Align clean reads to a reference genome using HISAT2. Assemble transcripts and quantify gene expression levels with featureCounts or Salmon. Finally, identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) using software packages like DESeq2 or edgeR [96] [94] [97].

Proteomic Profiling via Mass Spectrometry

Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the cornerstone of modern proteomics, with a typical label-free workflow as follows [98] [94]:

• Protein Extraction and Digestion: Lyse cells or tissues in a suitable buffer (e.g., containing Tris, detergents like IGEPAL). Clarify the lysate by centrifugation. Quantify protein concentration using a BCA assay. Precipitate proteins to remove contaminants, then solubilize and denature them in urea. Reduce disulfide bonds with DTT and alkylate with iodoacetamide. Digest proteins into peptides overnight using a specific protease, most commonly trypsin [94].
• LC-MS/MS Analysis: Separate the resulting peptides using a nano-scale reverse-phase UHPLC system (e.g., Ultimate 3000 RSLC). Elute peptides directly into the mass spectrometer (e.g., Orbitrap Fusion Tribrid). The MS operates in a data-dependent acquisition mode: first, a full MS scan is performed in the Orbitrap analyzer at high resolution, followed by the selection of the most intense precursor ions for fragmentation via HCD (Higher Energy Collisional Dissociation). MS/MS spectra of the fragment ions are then acquired [94].
• Proteomic Data Analysis: Process the raw MS/MS files using software such as Peaks Studio or DIA-NN. Search the fragmentation spectra against a protein sequence database (e.g., UniProt) to identify peptides and infer proteins. Quantify protein abundance based on the intensity of precursor ions or extracted ion chromatograms in label-free approaches. Statistical analysis is then performed to identify differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) [96] [94].

Diagram 1: Integrated transcriptomic and proteomic workflow.

Case Study: Analyzing Plant Stress Responses in BLSS

A study on Isatis indigotica (Isatidis Folium) under drought and salt stress effectively demonstrates the integrated power of transcriptomics and proteomics for evaluating plant component performance in adverse conditions, which is highly relevant to BLSS where environmental control is critical [95].

Experimental Design: Plants were subjected to controlled drought (30-50% soil water content) and salt (180 mmol/L NaCl) stress conditions. Leaf samples were analyzed using UPLC for bioactive constituents, alongside transcriptomic (RNA-Seq) and proteomic (LC-MS/MS) profiling [95].

Key Findings from Multi-omics Integration:

• Complementary Data: The analysis revealed that abiotic stress significantly altered levels of bioactive constituents and the expression of specific genes and proteins. Pathway analysis showed that both techniques implicated biological processes like porphyrin metabolism and photosynthesis in the stress response, confirming a core set of affected pathways [95].
• Unique Insights: Transcriptomics identified key regulatory networks involved in the synthesis of valuable indole alkaloids (e.g., indigo, indirubin). Meanwhile, proteomics pinpointed specific functional proteins, such as HemB, PsbB, and RBS2, as candidate biomarkers for quality deterioration under stress [95].
• Synergistic Outcome: The integration of chemical analysis with multi-omics data allowed the researchers to propose a new hierarchical quality control scenario for the herb, showcasing how this approach can lead to robust monitoring and evaluation systems essential for reliable BLSS components [95].

Diagram 2: Multi-omics insights into plant stress response pathways.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Solutions

The following table details key reagents and materials essential for performing the transcriptomic and proteomic experiments described in this guide.

Table 2: Key research reagents and their functions in multi-omics analysis

Reagent / Material	Function	Application in Workflow
Trizol Reagent	Simultaneous extraction of DNA, RNA, protein, and metabolites from a single sample [98] [97].	Sample Preparation
Oligo(dT) Magnetic Beads	Purification of mRNA from total RNA by binding to the poly-A tail [94].	Transcriptomics
Trypsin/Lys-C Mix	Protease that specifically cleaves proteins at lysine and arginine residues, generating peptides for MS analysis [94].	Proteomics
Trialkylphosphine (e.g., DTT)	Reduces disulfide bonds in proteins, denaturing them for efficient digestion.	Proteomics
Iodoacetamide	Alkylates cysteine residues (after reduction) to prevent reformation of disulfide bonds.	Proteomics
C18 LC Columns	Reverse-phase chromatography media for separating peptides based on hydrophobicity prior to MS.	Proteomics
HISAT2, DESeq2, edgeR	Bioinformatics software for read alignment and differential gene expression analysis [96] [94] [97].	Data Analysis
Peaks Studio, DIA-NN	Bioinformatics software for identifying and quantifying proteins from MS/MS spectra [96] [94].	Data Analysis

For BLSS research, where understanding and optimizing biological component performance is critical for mission success, a single-omics approach provides an incomplete picture. Transcriptomics excels at revealing regulatory potential and early stress signatures, while proteomics confirms the functional execution of these responses at the protein level [95] [93]. As demonstrated in the case study, their integration is not merely additive but synergistic, leading to a robust, mechanistic understanding of component behavior under controlled and stressed conditions. This multi-omics framework is indispensable for the rigorous comparison and engineering of highly efficient, reliable, and sustainable biological systems for long-duration space exploration.

Conclusion

The efficacy of biological components in life support systems is fundamentally proven, with demonstrated capabilities in resource recovery, food production, and psychological support. However, critical challenges remain in system integration, radiation protection, and achieving full operational closure for long-duration missions. Future research must prioritize testing fully integrated systems in space-analog environments, developing radiation-resilient biological components, and establishing standardized metrics for cross-system comparison. The advancement of BLSS technology not only enables sustainable human presence beyond Earth but also drives innovation in terrestrial applications including controlled environment agriculture, closed-loop biomanufacturing, and advanced ecological systems. Strategic investment in bioregenerative research is imperative to maintain international competitiveness in the emerging domain of space bioeconomy and to address fundamental challenges in human survivability in isolated environments.

References

• 1. Critical investments in bioregenerative for... life support systems [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12357894/]
• 2. Plant and microbial science and technology as cornerstones to Bioregenerative Life Support Systems in space | npj Microgravity [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-023-00317-9]
• 3. Frontiers | Insects in bioregenerative : unlocking... life support systems [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2025.1621099/full]
• 4. Controlled ecological life - support - Wikipedia system [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_ecological_life-support_system]
• 5. Bioregenerative life-support systems - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7942592/]
• 6. 2 ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS | Advanced Technology for Human Support in Space | The National Academies Press [https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/5826/chapter/4]
• 7. Interactions (2.2.2) | IB DP ESS | TutorChase Trophic [https://www.tutorchase.com/notes/ib/ess/2-2-2-trophic-interactions]
• 8. Diagram - GeeksforGeeks Trophic level [https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/biology/trophic-level-diagram/]
• 9. - Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary Trophic level [https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/trophic-level]
• 10. Mastering Trophic Levels [https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/mastering-trophic-levels-ecosystems]
• 11. EPA EcoBox Tools by Exposure Pathways - Food Chains | US EPA [https://www.epa.gov/ecobox/epa-ecobox-tools-exposure-pathways-food-chains]
• 12. Eating up the world's food web and the human trophic level - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24297882/]
• 13. Life Support Systems - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/life-support-systems]
• 14. Perspectives of different type biological life support systems (BLSS) usage in space missions - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11540782/]
• 15. Frontiers | Microgreens as a Component of Space Life ... Support [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.01587/full]
• 16. Effects of Indoor Plants on Human Functions: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9224521/]
• 17. Physiological and Psychological Effects of Visual Stimulation with Green Plant Types - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8702154/]
• 18. How plants promote better mental health and wellbeing – UKRI [https://www.ukri.org/what-we-do/iyph2020/how-plants-promote-better-mental-health-and-wellbeing/]
• 19. and Cyanobacteria -Based Biological Life Support System... Algal [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10057978/]
• 20. and Cyanobacteria -Based Biological Algal ... Life Support System [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/13/3/816]
• 21. Growth of microalgae and cyanobacteria consortium in a photobioreactor treating liquid anaerobic digestate from vegetable waste | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50173-6]
• 22. Potential of microalgae and cyanobacteria to improve soil health and... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2023/va/d2va00158f]
• 23. Frontiers | Uncovering Potential Applications of Cyanobacteria and... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00515/full]
• 24. status regulates algicidal activity of Aeromonas... | PLOS One Nutritional [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213370]
• 25. Review of research into bioregenerative life support system(s) which can support humans living in space - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214552421000663]
• 26. Critical investments in bioregenerative life support systems for... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-025-00518-4?error=cookies_not_supported&code=bb2e23b5-3057-4061-8e2c-3c54b4f15038]
• 27. (PDF) Paper Session III-B - Closed Ecological Life Support System... [https://www.academia.edu/122621864/Paper_Session_III_B_Closed_Ecological_Life_Support_System_CELSS_Modeling]
• 28. Yuegong-1 - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuegong-1]
• 29. 's ' China ' for Lunar Research Tested on Earth | Palace Space Space [https://www.space.com/26267-china-lunar-palace-space-research-mission.html]
• 30. Reliability and lifetime estimation of bioregenerative life support system based on 370-day closed human experiment of lunar palace 1 and Monte Carlo simulation - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576522006294]
• 31. Human lunar base: " Lunar 1" team of Beihang University... Palace [https://the-innovation.org/article/doi/10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100592]
• 32. Space and Sustainability: How the Lessons of Biosphere Inspired... 2 [https://www.universetoday.com/articles/space-and-sustainability-how-the-lessons-of-b2-inspired-samc2b2]
• 33. Biosphere 2: A Closed Bioregenerative Life Support System, an Analog for Long Duration Space Missions | SpringerLink [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-015-8889-8_16]
• 34. Affective health and countermeasures in long - duration space... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9123223/]
• 35. Comparison between short-term stress and long-term adaptive responses reveal common paths to molecular adaptation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8873613/]
• 36. Biologically-Based and Physiochemical Life Support and In Situ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8398003/]
• 37. Review of research into bioregenerative life support system(s) which can support humans living in space - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34689943/]
• 38. Use of Photobioreactors in Regenerative Life Support Systems for Human Space Exploration - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8281973/]
• 39. Mathematical modeling, design and optimization of conceptual configuration of soil-like substrate bioreactor based on system dynamics and digital simulation - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925857412003928]
• 40. Recent developments in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering... [https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13068-018-1181-1]
• 41. and microalgae in Cyanobacteria human habitation on Mars supporting [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35318100/]
• 42. The siderophilic cyanobacterium Leptolyngbya sp. strain... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071628/]
• 43. (PDF) High-Quality Draft Genome Sequence of the Siderophilic and... [https://www.academia.edu/130259500/High_Quality_Draft_Genome_Sequence_of_the_Siderophilic_and_Thermophilic_Leptolyngbyaceae_Cyanobacterium_JSC_12]
• 44. ESA - Life support [https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Research/Life_support]
• 45. ESA - Microgravity and ISS [https://www.esa.int/Education/Orbit_Your_Thesis/Microgravity_and_ISS2]
• 46. Microgravity : Experiment - International Space Station - JAXA [https://iss.jaxa.jp/en/kiboexp/seu/categories/microgravity/index.html]
• 47. Demonstrations - Technology National Lab ISS [https://issnationallab.org/research-and-science/space-research-overview/research-areas/technology-development-manufacturing/technology-demonstrations/]
• 48. The microgravity environment for experiments on the International Space Station - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16145793/]
• 49. Scientific research on the International Space Station - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station]
• 50. New Research Questions The Value Of Space Experiments [https://orbitaltoday.com/2025/08/15/a-new-research-questions-the-value-of-space-experiments/]
• 51. Space Station 20th: First NASA Research on ISS - NASA [https://www.nasa.gov/history/space-station-20th-first-nasa-research-on-iss/]
• 52. CGBA | BioServe Space Technologies | University of Colorado Boulder [https://www.colorado.edu/center/bioserve/spaceflight-hardware/cgba]
• 53. Active Radiation Shielding: A Comprehensive... - New Space Economy [https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2025/11/18/active-radiation-shielding-a-comprehensive-analysis-of-magnetic-field-generation-for-deep-space-crew-protection/]
• 54. Space Radiation Biology for “Living in Space” - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7168699/]
• 55. Biological Effects of Space Radiation and Development of Effective Countermeasures - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4170231/]
• 56. Radiobiology | SpringerLink Space [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-18810-7_10]
• 57. targets in cellular Molecular to ionizing response and... radiation [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12793724/]
• 58. Exploring molecular and modular insights into space ionizing... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-025-00508-6?error=cookies_not_supported&code=079e82c7-be52-4cfa-baa6-865e1ec38ed2]
• 59. Investigating Molecular to Responses for... Space Radiation [https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220009591]
• 60. Emerging themes and future directions in space health... radiation [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12049392/]
• 61. Exploring plant responses to altered gravity for advancing space agriculture - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12177493/]
• 62. Investigating plant responses to microgravity and adaptations in gravisensitive environments | Environmental Sciences Europe | Full Text [https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-024-00851-7]
• 63. A review of plants strategies to resist biotic and abiotic environmental ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37524179/]
• 64. Multiple environmental interactively affect soil phosphorus... stressors [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02772-6?error=cookies_not_supported&code=52e70855-0729-463e-adfe-7030bd0dd000]
• 65. Frontiers | Exploring physiological and molecular dynamics of drought... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1565635/full]
• 66. 2025 MELiSSA Conference - 2025 MELiSSA Conference [https://2025melissaconference.org/]
• 67. ECLSS - Wikipedia ISS [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_ECLSS]
• 68. Home - Biolife Solutions [https://www.biolifesolutions.com/]
• 69. Our Company - Biolife Solutions [https://www.biolifesolutions.com/company/]
• 70. Frontiers | Effects of isolation, crowding, and different psychological ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2022.963301/full]
• 71. The structure of psychological well-being revisited - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7473027/]
• 72. Analysis of Psychological Well-Being from a Compositional Data Analysis Perspective: A New Approach - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10669479/]
• 73. The Ryff Scales of Psychological Wellbeing: Your How-To Guide [https://positivepsychology.com/ryff-scale-psychological-wellbeing/]
• 74. (PDF) The Psychological General Well - Being Index (PGWBI) for... [https://www.academia.edu/53899125/The_Psychological_General_Well_Being_Index_PGWBI_for_assessing_stress_of_seafarers_on_board_merchant_ships]
• 75. Microalgae in bioregenerative life support systems for space applications - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S221192642300365X]
• 76. International Space Station Environmental Control and Life Support System Mass and Crewtime Utilization In Comparison to a Long Duration Human Space Exploration Mission [https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/items/262421aa-417b-4b4b-9d7a-9e7f4ae1c347]
• 77. Complexity Evaluation of an Environmental Control and Life-Support System Based on Directed and Undirected Structural Entropy Methods - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8465968/]
• 78. Design of a modular controlled unit for the study of bioprocesses: Towards solutions for Bioregenerative Life Support Systems in space - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214552422000803]
• 79. Critical investments in bioregenerative life support systems for bioastronautics and sustainable lunar exploration | npj Microgravity [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-025-00518-4]
• 80. Responses to Elevated CO2 on Food Production and Life ... Support [https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/89830?show=full]
• 81. Development of Nitrogen Recycling Strategies for Bioregenerative Life Support Systems in Space - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8548772/]
• 82. Advanced Life and Technology Development Support Research Metric [https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/45844174/advanced-life-support-research-and-technology-development-metric]
• 83. Plants for water , recycling regeneration and oxygen food production [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11537696/]
• 84. -physical-chemical aspects of a human Biological system... life support [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11541109/]
• 85. Main characteristics of biological of developing components ... life [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Main-characteristics-of-biological-components-of-Sychev-Shepelev/ecbfe403da7697594f56ba29d12382f23d967532]
• 86. Plants for water recycling, oxygen regeneration and food production - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0734242X9190074H]
• 87. Life-support system - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-support_system]
• 88. Growth efficiency, intestinal biology , and nutrient utilization and... [https://jasbsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40104-022-00682-7]
• 89. Nutritional Needs and Principles of Nutrient Transport | Organismal Biology [https://organismalbio.biosci.gatech.edu/nutrition-transport-and-homeostasis/nutrition-needs-and-adaptations/]
• 90. Biological life support systems for space crews: Some results and prospects | Human Physiology [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0362119711070292]
• 91. Comprehensive Overview of Environmental Control and Life ... Support [https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/environmental-control-and-life-support-systems-1498210]
• 92. Multi-omics approaches to disease | Genome Biology | Full Text [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-017-1215-1]
• 93. Applications of multi‐omics analysis in human diseases - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10390758/]
• 94. Analysis of Comparative and Transcriptomic Expression... Proteomic [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11811994/]
• 95. and Transcriptomic -based proteomic of the mechanisms by... analysis [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-06309-z]
• 96. Integrated transcriptomic and proteomic analysis reveals molecular... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-12263-9]
• 97. Integrated Transcriptomic , Proteomic , and Metabolomic Analyses ... [https://thericejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12284-025-00826-z]
• 98. An integrated transcriptomic and proteomic approach to identify the... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84385-5?error=cookies_not_supported&code=22c855d2-1419-49c5-9633-229a845829bc]