Send it to the moon, but all the way there as part of the Artemis initiative. Either out in high orbit or actually descend it to the surface (don't ask me how) where it would serve in some useful function (don't ask me what).
From contacts I've heard of some studies into doing this and then using it for various things. It seems to be theoretically possible, given enough time and fuel, but NASA seem pretty set on just deorbiting it and washing their hands of the matter. For them its the safest option, if the least inspirational.
Why then sign it off to the Russians and/or Chinese and let the former use those wonderful workhorse boosters of theirs to deal with the complicated orbital mechanics. I wish everybody would stop thinking nationalisticaly about the expansion of the human race into the solar system!
Great post Alastair. I have two thoughts. First, we better have a replacement before we do anything. We don't want humanitys permanent presence on space to be interrupted. Second, could we blast it into a higher orbit beyond orbital debris and turn it into a museum?
The station will be an inoperable powerless hulk, but imagine the views future space tourists could get on a “space cruise,” visiting an early example of human space technology. It would be like visiting the Pyramids today.
Seeing this fairly large hulk emerge from the cold and dark emptyness of space would truly be something.
I think we probably could send it beyond the main belts of debris. The main challenge is getting enough fuel up to do that, but its not an insurmountable problem. I suspect the real reason is more that NASA doesn't want to be responsible for the station after the end of its useful life. Even if the space station is shut down and abandoned, there's still a risk of something hitting it and causing damage or more debris. If that happens at a high altitude it'll be almost impossible to clean up the debris and right now most space agencies are pushing to limit the amount in orbit.
I like option 3, followed closely by option 2. If SpaceX has the amount of human launch activity that it is striving for with Starship, it would seem to be possible and advantageous to have human occupation ongoing with the station being in a higher or lunar orbit. It would still make a good test bed for extended missions and/or a gateway to the lunar surface. It might make sense to simplify the station - remove perhaps some of the more experimental or specialized modules, and retain the core architecture. Seems a waste to crash the station into the ocean.
If Starship works in the way SpaceX is hoping, it's easier to put a new space station up. I know some companies are working on plans to do this, though its questionable how realistic those plans are. For sure I hope they don't deorbit the station before we have a good replacement up. Most of the plans I've seen think a new but smaller station could be up in the 2030s, so if the ISS is extended by a few years (which is plausible) we should get an overlap. It would seem like a good idea to design future stations in a more modular way as well, so we can swap out old modules and replace them with new versions, or detach them and rearrange them in new ways.
Send it to the moon, but all the way there as part of the Artemis initiative. Either out in high orbit or actually descend it to the surface (don't ask me how) where it would serve in some useful function (don't ask me what).
From contacts I've heard of some studies into doing this and then using it for various things. It seems to be theoretically possible, given enough time and fuel, but NASA seem pretty set on just deorbiting it and washing their hands of the matter. For them its the safest option, if the least inspirational.
Why then sign it off to the Russians and/or Chinese and let the former use those wonderful workhorse boosters of theirs to deal with the complicated orbital mechanics. I wish everybody would stop thinking nationalisticaly about the expansion of the human race into the solar system!
Great post Alastair. I have two thoughts. First, we better have a replacement before we do anything. We don't want humanitys permanent presence on space to be interrupted. Second, could we blast it into a higher orbit beyond orbital debris and turn it into a museum?
The station will be an inoperable powerless hulk, but imagine the views future space tourists could get on a “space cruise,” visiting an early example of human space technology. It would be like visiting the Pyramids today.
Seeing this fairly large hulk emerge from the cold and dark emptyness of space would truly be something.
I think we probably could send it beyond the main belts of debris. The main challenge is getting enough fuel up to do that, but its not an insurmountable problem. I suspect the real reason is more that NASA doesn't want to be responsible for the station after the end of its useful life. Even if the space station is shut down and abandoned, there's still a risk of something hitting it and causing damage or more debris. If that happens at a high altitude it'll be almost impossible to clean up the debris and right now most space agencies are pushing to limit the amount in orbit.
I like option 3, followed closely by option 2. If SpaceX has the amount of human launch activity that it is striving for with Starship, it would seem to be possible and advantageous to have human occupation ongoing with the station being in a higher or lunar orbit. It would still make a good test bed for extended missions and/or a gateway to the lunar surface. It might make sense to simplify the station - remove perhaps some of the more experimental or specialized modules, and retain the core architecture. Seems a waste to crash the station into the ocean.
If Starship works in the way SpaceX is hoping, it's easier to put a new space station up. I know some companies are working on plans to do this, though its questionable how realistic those plans are. For sure I hope they don't deorbit the station before we have a good replacement up. Most of the plans I've seen think a new but smaller station could be up in the 2030s, so if the ISS is extended by a few years (which is plausible) we should get an overlap. It would seem like a good idea to design future stations in a more modular way as well, so we can swap out old modules and replace them with new versions, or detach them and rearrange them in new ways.