Space

NASA reveals new plan to deorbit International Space Station

The International Space Station is to be decommissioned and deorbited
NASA
The International Space Station is to be decommissioned and deorbited
NASA

NASA's final plans for the International Space Station when it is decommissioned at the end of the decade have been revealed as it asks for proposals for a new spacecraft that will be used to guide the station to burn up in the Earth's atmosphere.

According to current policy, NASA and most of its international partners intend to operate the ISS until 2030, by which time its basic structure will become too fatigued to continue to host astronauts safely. The problem is, how to dispose of the 100-tonne structure safely?

Pushing it into a higher orbit isn't feasible because of the enormous amounts of energy required to do so and the stresses that would be placed on the spacecraft that could cause it to break apart. The alternative is to carry out a controlled descent into the atmosphere where it will burn up and any surviving debris will fall into an uninhabited ocean region.

The original idea was to use a series of Russian robotic Progress cargo ships to push the ISS into the desired orbit, but a year-long study by NASA and the ISS partners showed that the Progress option wouldn't work as desired. Unspoken by NASA is also the fact that Russia is scheduled to leave the station in 2028 and deteriorating relations between Russia and the other partners make the previous plan less than reliable.

As an alternative, NASA has put out a proposal to American companies to develop a United States Deorbit Vehicle (USDV) that will be used for the final deorbit phase after the station naturally descends in altitude as its orbit decays. The new craft will be either a modification of an existing one or a completely new design. Competitors are being offered a firm fixed price of cost plus initiative agreement to cover design, development, testing, and evaluation, followed by actual construction and deployment. Because the spacecraft has only one chance to complete its mission, NASA expects it to include a heavy dose of redundancy in its systems.

Source: NASA

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flipboard
  • LinkedIn
17 comments
michael_dowling
The ISS cost 150 Billion to construct. I would like to see what they mean by it becoming "too fatigued" to continue being used safely.
John S
How about pushing it farther out in orbit to possibly reuse later?
Gordien
The moon could use an Air B n B.

They must have calculated that there will be no effect on our atmosphere.
Username
There is a third option and that is do de-assemble it and bring it back down in pieces. A reverse of how it got up there. Nasa is not looking for the best solution but the cheapest.
Sean Reynolds
I wish they would push it out farther and leave it for the future generations to turn into a museum, rather than destroying the history.
Aermaco
I am sorry but it seems very wasteful to burn up the International Space Station and start over when it could simultaneously be moved to a more permanent orbit as they eject to old unusable sections downward as thrust mass as they slowly add new and better sections.

Most importantly then they always having the ISS's operational value while it is both growing and reducing sections as part of its mission.

Some items and system components would likely be able to have longer life spans up here as added efficiency.
Douglas Rogers
Use very low thrust ion engines to move it to a Lagrange point.
Captain Danger
@johnS
"Pushing it into a higher orbit isn't feasible because of the enormous amounts of energy required to do so and the stresses that would be placed on the spacecraft that could cause it to break apart"
Brian M
@michael_dowling Health and safety at work here I think!
All seems a bit of waste, surely some of the materials/components can be repurposed, how about replacing the bits that are at risk of fatigue, and then refitting the older stuff as required? How about shipping materials off to the moon for help in building a base etc. There is a lot of launch to orbit cost up here!
clay
It seems a higher orbit boost to park it for parts would be useful, albeit expensive.. If the ISS really only "masses" a 100 tons (metric) then a single (mature) Starship could put a new one in orbit.. of course the compactness of Starship's payload would mean an ikea-esc "some assembly required" model.