Lawmakers ask what it would take to “store” the International Space Station | NASA shall evaluate the “viability of transferring the ISS to a safe orbital harbor” after retirement.
Lawmakers ask what it would take to “store” the International Space Station | NASA shall evaluate the “viability of transferring the ISS to a safe orbital harbor” after retirement.
>Members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee voted to approve a NASA authorization bill this week, advancing legislation chock full of policy guidelines meant to give lawmakers a voice in the space agency’s strategic direction.
>The committee met to “mark up” the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2026, adding more than 40 amendments to the bill before a unanimous vote to refer the legislation to the full House of Representatives. Wednesday’s committee vote was just one of several steps needed for the bill to become law. It must pass a vote on the House floor, win approval from the Senate, and then go to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature.
>Ars has reported on one of the amendments, which would authorize NASA to take steps toward a “commercial” deep space program using privately owned rockets and spacecraft rather than vehicles owned by the government.
>Another add-on to the authorization bill would require NASA to reassess whether to guide the International Space Station (ISS) toward a destructive atmospheric reentry after it is decommissioned in 2030. The space agency’s current plan is to deorbit the space station in 2031 over the Pacific Ocean, where debris that survives the scorching reentry will fall into a remote, unpopulated part of the sea.
caaper on
It makes sense to preserve the orbit of the ISS, even if a use for it isn’t available right now. The amount of collective energy required to get it up there is astronomical. The question is, will it ever be useful enough to justify the expense of parking it.
Triabolical_ on
It’s not surprising that congress cannot read. NASA did a white paper where they talked about the options and why they chose deorbit.
4 Comments
>Members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee voted to approve a NASA authorization bill this week, advancing legislation chock full of policy guidelines meant to give lawmakers a voice in the space agency’s strategic direction.
>The committee met to “mark up” the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2026, adding more than 40 amendments to the bill before a unanimous vote to refer the legislation to the full House of Representatives. Wednesday’s committee vote was just one of several steps needed for the bill to become law. It must pass a vote on the House floor, win approval from the Senate, and then go to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature.
>Ars has reported on one of the amendments, which would authorize NASA to take steps toward a “commercial” deep space program using privately owned rockets and spacecraft rather than vehicles owned by the government.
>Another add-on to the authorization bill would require NASA to reassess whether to guide the International Space Station (ISS) toward a destructive atmospheric reentry after it is decommissioned in 2030. The space agency’s current plan is to deorbit the space station in 2031 over the Pacific Ocean, where debris that survives the scorching reentry will fall into a remote, unpopulated part of the sea.
It makes sense to preserve the orbit of the ISS, even if a use for it isn’t available right now. The amount of collective energy required to get it up there is astronomical. The question is, will it ever be useful enough to justify the expense of parking it.
It’s not surprising that congress cannot read. NASA did a white paper where they talked about the options and why they chose deorbit.
[https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-analysis-summary.pdf](https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-analysis-summary.pdf)
I did a video on it here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ3H6we7cJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ3H6we7cJY)
This idea is good for two reasons.
1. Learning how to boost large orbital objects into a higher, stable orbit would give us very useful knowledge.
2. It allows for future generations the opportunity to repurpose it.
Well worth whatever money is spent on such an endeavor.