NASA plans to deorbit the ISS sometime around 2030. Building something the size of the ISS in orbit is a huge undertaking and NASA keeps talking about wanting to build new space stations or a moon base, so why not leave the ISS in space and reuse it rather than literally throw the whole thing away?
In: Planetary Science
The iss wasn’t designed to be in use indefinitely.
Continued use either means all future additions need to be downgraded to meet iss specs or the iss needs to be wholly upgraded….or replaced
> leave the ISS in space
The ISS needs to be periodically boosted up a bit by a docked spacecraft or it would deorbit by itself. It’s essentially scraping the topmost layer of the atmosphere. It would imply scheduling missions to it continuously. The ISS is also just super out of date. It’s like sticking a new penthouse on top of a run down commieblock every few years.
No, we can’t put it in moon orbit, it’s like <1% of the distance there right now and the operation would cost more than the ISS. I know one of you wanted to ask that, go play Kerbal Space Program.
It’s old. Like eventually you need to get rid of your 20 year old car because it’s not reliable anymore, you need to stop using the 20 year old space station. Stuff can’t be repaired and stay at the same effectiveness forever.
Structures left in space can’t be left there infinitely, they will require repair/replacement to keep them safe, especially since part of the structure is designed to keep humans alive.
NASA does have plans to commercialize space stations, as part of its plan, one or more private companies will likely be the ones launching a new space station around the turn of the decade.
Originally, it was only planned to last 15 years. Its mission has already been extended multiple times, and if it continues operating until 2030 then it will have doubled its expected lifespan. But it won’t last forever – eventually it will need to be deorbited.
The ISS’s orbit is low enough, it is slowed by the upper atmosphere. It requires periodic boosts from visiting spacecraft to maintain its orbit. That costs money.
When Skylab’s orbit decayed faster than expected, rained debris over parts of western Australia on reentry. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but it was an embarrassment for NASA. So, they plan to deorbit the ISS while they can control the reentry.
Because it’s not worth keeping. A lot of things are more expensive to update&repair than it is to construct something new and better from scratch.
The ISS is one of those things. Most of ISS modules are over 15 years old and have done what they can do.
On top of all the technical reasons, Russia is the #2 partner in the ISS program. While their funding could be supplanted by Europe, Japan, etc, they have been the main technical partner to NASA. Obviously, the Ukraine war has affected that.
On top of what others have said, it is slowly falling apart, it has leaks and other failures, remember it has to withstand tremendous conditions.
It requires maintenance which is expensive, a lot of the technology onboard is dated and any mishaps out in orbit could be catastrophic for the inhabitants. That actually plays a big role. Nobody is going to die if Hubble disintegrates for example as nobody is on board.
Relations with Russia are also strained, so they’re not ideal partners currently for such a project. Even more so since there are new transport options other than the Russian Soyuz.
Latest Answers