For years now, NASA has been planning for the International Space Station’s end-of-life. Its iconic status means that every time the topic comes up, people make various proposals to turn it over to a commercial operator, or to extend its life in some other way, but the fact is that, by 2030, the space station will be old tech. While I don’t know that a fully commercial replacement is viable (mostly because they wouldn’t be fully commercial, but rather more like NASA outsourcing the infrastructure and operations side – it’s still government money), I do agree that, after some three decades of continuous operations, it will be time for a new orbital science platform. Updates can only go so far.
The question then becomes what ought to be done with the space station when it is decommissioned. It cannot be allowed to remain in its present orbit and decay naturally. Such a large spacecraft would not burn up completely during passage through the atmosphere, so an uncontrolled reentry poses unacceptable risks, as highlighted by recent near-miss incidents of space debris reaching Earth’s surface (if you’ve not been following, part of a battery pallet from the ISS fell through a family’s roof, parts of a SpaceX Dragon capsule were found scattered across several locations, and there have been a few other, less news-generating incidents).
NASA’s solution, after extensive study, is to perform a controlled, destructive reentry. They recently contracted SpaceX to develop a vehicle that will dock with the ISS at its EOL and steer both station and deorbiter along a controlled flightpath to burn up over an empty stretch of ocean, where whatever does survive would fall into the sea with no risk to human life. Thus will the International Space Station meet its destructive end.
I am hardly the only one to think this is a shame. I understand that turning it over to a commercial operator, or trying to boost it into a higher orbit, aren’t viable options, for a variety of reasons. I also understand that a controlled, destructive reentry is probably the most efficient, simplest, most cost-effective, and certain disposal method. Minimal new technology needs to be developed, the space station won’t clutter up another orbit unnecessarily, and there are no concerns about sharing different nations’ technologies and components. It makes sense, and is an entirely logical plan…but this is the International Space Station. It is unique, a first, and, well, an icon. For an entire generation, it has been the human presence in orbit, more so than the space shuttle, or the space taxi services that ferry astronauts to and from the ISS. It’s a science platform, delivering advances in understanding and technology that improve life on Earth and further our understanding of the universe. It’s a symbol of international cooperation and human resilience. Like the Mercury and Apollo capsules, like the space shuttles, the ISS, to borrow a phrase, belongs in a museum.
Multiple museums, its capsules separated and spread around the world so that people from all of the nations that participated in the program can see where permanent human habitation in space began. Imagine walking into a science museum’s space exhibit and seeing a piece of the ISS, the real ISS that was once in orbit, maybe even being able to walk through it. We keep hearing that STEM careers, and especially the space field, have a talent problem, in that we’re not gaining and retaining enough people – how many people might be inspired to join the grand space enterprise by the chance to interact with a real piece of the ISS? I’m not, in general, a particularly touchy-feely kind of person, and even I think that would matter.
Matter enough, perhaps, to merit the effort that would be required to bring the International Space Station back down to Earth, intact. And it would require effort, and technologies that are not yet ready, and perhaps more funding than the 850 million dollars specified in the SpaceX deorbit vehicle contract. It would be a project as immense in its way as the initial construction of the station. It would require multiple vehicles capable of launching and reentering with a cargo capacity large enough to accommodate ISS modules. Those modules were not designed to come apart again, so spacecraft capable of dismantling it would need to be designed and launched. To avoid generating dangerous debris, the deconstruction would need to be carefully orchestrated, and parts of the station would still need to be destructively deorbited – the solar panels, for instance. Careful international negotiations would be required to satisfy all of the stakeholders.
Yet, all of that effort would not just be for the space station; it would also foster the technologies and capabilities that we will need for space travel going forward. SpaceX is already developing its Starship vehicle, capable of launching and reentering safely multiple times, with an immense cargo capacity. It, or something similar, could surely be adapted to accommodate ISS modules. The same technologies that would take the ISS apart, and secure it safely in the cargo hold of whatever vehicle will transport it back down, are those required for in-space manufacturing, satellite servicing, and other key, enabling technologies. Improved tracking and coordination technologies will also be useful for debris removal operations and advanced rendezvous and proximity operations. And improved international coordination was one of the main features of the ISS program. It might be a higher initial investment, but it will have more long-term payoff than a dedicated deorbiter that may or may not find future applications.
NASA’s current plan of a controlled, destructive reentry is safe, straightforward, and already at a high technology readiness level. It checks all of the necessary boxes, and it puts a neat end to the International Space Station (well, except for the mess it will spread across some area of the Pacific Ocean). None of that need be debated (again). I contend, though, that returning the ISS’s components intact to the surface is worth the extra difficulty, both for the tangible increases to TRLs for key enabling technologies applicable to future space travel and operations requirements, and for the intangible impact of making components of this international symbol available to the public. The International Space Station is not just another satellite, or even just another space station. By returning it to Earth intact, we have an opportunity to preserve its significance and history while advancing its mission even with its EOL. In preserving the International Space Station, we remember the past while inventing the future. That’s worth the extra challenges.
IGC Publishing 