Stash or splash? Lawmakers ask NASA to find alternatives for International Space Station
- Reference: 1770317415
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/02/05/iss_stash_or_splash/
- Source link:
The question came up during the [1]markup of the NASA Reauthorization Act and raises an intriguing possibility. Could the multi-billion-dollar complex be sent to a higher orbit where future generations might find a use for it, rather than destroyed?
To be clear, the amendment offered by Reps. Whitesides (D-CA) and Begich (R-AK) and passed by voice vote was not about changing the plan to end ISS operations in 2030, but instead asked whether the ISS could be stored in a higher, stable orbit once it reached the end of its useful life.
[2]
Whitesides explained that the amendment required NASA to conduct an analysis of the costs and risks of storing the ISS in orbit. It did not mandate relocation, nor did it authorize funding or the execution of any such plan.
[3]
[4]
It is, however, worth pondering as the ISS nears the end of its life. In 2024, SpaceX was [5]awarded the contract to build a vehicle to de-orbit the ISS. The vehicle is expected to be ready by 2029, ahead of a planned push to send the ISS into the Earth's atmosphere.
But the alternative is is intriguing: It is technically possible to boost the orbit, though it would require building a vehicle to do so. The bigger question is whether doing so is worth the risks involved.
[6]NASA begins formal anomaly review after MAVEN probe lost in space
[7]Challenger at 40: The disaster that changed NASA
[8]NASA taps Claude to conjure Mars rover's travel plan
[9]NASA jettisons Neo4j database for Memgraph citing costs
Whitesides acknowledged some of those risks in the amendment. The ISS is aging and could shed components in the future, posing a potential debris risk. There is also the possibility of a future uncontrolled re-entry.
NASA has already [10]performed an evaluation and concluded that the chance of something hitting the ISS would increase as the orbit was raised, from an estimated 51 years between impacts at its current altitude to less than four years at 497 miles. Complete fragmentation could be catastrophic.
[11]
It is, however, an interesting thought experiment.
Another markup, introduced and later withdrawn, came from Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) regarding the [12]controversial requirement to relocate a space vehicle to Houston. NASA is widely expected to move Space Shuttle Discovery from its current resting place at the Smithsonian Museum to a facility in Texas, although it's not confirmed this yet.
Beyer's markup would have required NASA to inform Congress of the cost "and potential for physical harm" to the space vehicle before kicking off the process.
[13]
The markup was withdrawn on the understanding that discussions would be had on the relocation "without damaging the vehicle, preserving the integrity of our assets for generations to come." ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://science.house.gov/markups?ContentRecord_id=FF6B5E53-D99B-49CB-A383-C06DCCFE1EE5
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aYUhEVhzYlAHtEM-pbTOjAAAAE4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aYUhEVhzYlAHtEM-pbTOjAAAAE4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aYUhEVhzYlAHtEM-pbTOjAAAAE4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/27/spacex_wins_iss_deorbit_contract/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/27/nasa_anomaly_review_maven/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/28/challenger_40/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/31/nasa_taps_claude_to_conjure/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/07/nasa_people_memgraph/
[10] https://www.nasa.gov/faqs-the-international-space-station-transition-plan/
[11] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aYUhEVhzYlAHtEM-pbTOjAAAAE4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/09/cornyn_smithsonian_shuttle_comments/
[13] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aYUhEVhzYlAHtEM-pbTOjAAAAE4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Bad idea
The station has all sorts of volatiles inside which could explode if not properly taken care of, like cooling fluids and Lithium-Ion batteries. Putting it in a higher orbit would lead to a much more dangerous debris field if such an event were to happen.
Long story short: don't do this. Just retire and de-orbit it.
Re: Bad idea
The volatiles are not a problem - venting the ISS would easily dispose of them.
I wonder how operational it would remain without routine maintenance from the crew.
Not long, its been falling apart for years, especially the Russian modules. Just having 3 crew on it currently is risky to its operations as it is.
Beyer's markup
Another markup, introduced and later withdrawn, came from Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) regarding the controversial requirement to relocate a space vehicle to Houston.
For a brief moment there I actually envisioned Beyer suggesting NASA de-orbit the ISS on Houston to comply with Trump's promise to give them a spacecraft in which astronauts had actually flown.
Must be getting old.
I wonder if they could take it apart and use Starship to bring it back down? Could be put in museums instead of destroyed. No, wouldn't be easy, but might be worth it.
Cheaper source
My personal preference is to allocate the bulk of funding on creating a future rather than a museum with a placard: "Here lies the remains of the US space program". I do see value in museum exhibits that get children interested in becoming the next generation of a functional space program. After the ISS burns and crashes there will be plenty of redundant kit current the [1]Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory : ISS modules, an HTV, ATV, Dragon and Cygnus. That sounds like the basis of an interesting museum exhibit with much reduced cost.
The only good thing I see about this "What if we boost the ISS to a higher orbit" report is that NASA must have already done the work before deciding that de-orbiting was a better option.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Buoyancy_Laboratory
everything eventually ends up in a landfill (or burns up in a de-orbit maneuver)
It's an ongoing issue with the things that humans make. I'm sure archaeologists will one day root through our trash and find a space shuttle or two.