Spaceflight Insider

OPINION: Ending ISS too soon would be an Apollo-sized mistake

The ISS as seen from the final departing Space Shuttle in 2011, STS-135. Photo Credit: NASA

The ISS as seen from the final departing Space Shuttle in 2011, STS-135. Photo Credit: NASA

It appears the Trump administration may look to end support for the International Space Station by 2025. This proposal, if approved by Congress, would be a huge mistake similar to that of ending the Apollo program in 1972.

First reported by The Verge’s Loren Grush, a draft budget proposal calls for ending U.S. funding for the ISS by 2025 to free up some $3 billion to $4 billion in the budget for the Trump administration’s plan to return U.S. astronauts to the Moon. The goal would be to transition low-Earth orbit activities to private industry.

An artist's rendering of a proposed Bigelow Aerospace B330 module attached to the ISS to be check out before eventually becoming a standalone space station. Image Credit: Bigelow Aerospace

An artist’s rendering of a proposed Bigelow Aerospace B330 module attached to the ISS to be check out before eventually becoming a standalone space station. Image Credit: Bigelow Aerospace

Official details won’t emerge until at least Feb. 12, 2018, when the White House’s final Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal is slated to be released. However if this “transition” movie sounds familiar, it is because it has been seen before—multiple times—and it has never had a happy ending.

Mind the gap

The most recent of these “transitions” came in 2011 with the retirement of the Space Shuttle’s with no follow-up program ready. The two that were designed to ultimately be its successors, SLS/Orion and the Commercial Crew Program, are years behind schedule. They were slated to be operational in 2017 and 2015 respectively. Neither program has yet to put U.S. astronauts into space resulting in the longest independent space access gap in U.S. history—6.5 years and counting.

SLS/Orion aren’t expected to put humans into space until 2023 while NASA’s commercial crew partners, SpaceX and Boeing, aren’t expected to send crews into space until 2019 at the earliest. This isn’t because of incompetence; it is partially because of funding levels and that, well, space is hard. There is no evidence to suggest significant delays won’t be incurred in getting commercial space stations in low-Earth orbit to replace ISS, let alone a deep space gateway (the U.S. space agency’s proposal to put a space station in cislunar space), by 2025.

While there is a hope that the International Space Station could one day be operated at least partially commercially, there is no consensus on how that would be done or if commercial industry could sustain it alone, let alone if they could afford it. The only example of a commercial entity taking control of a space station came in 1999 with MirCorp. It was able to come up with money for a single mission before the model fell apart. Mir was just too old and expensive.

While the ISS will also someday be too old and expensive to maintain, Boeing engineers have suggested the outpost could operate without significant repair/upgrade through 2028.

Several companies, such as Bigelow Aerospace and Axiom Space, are already talking about using the ISS as a construction platform to start assembling their own stations. But like all spaceflight endeavors, delays are part of the game and banking on at least one being ready by 2025 would be risky.

Even Russia is working to do a proper transition. It too wants to use the ISS as a construction base for its next space station (although if faces continual delays) and a test platform for its Soyuz crew capsule replacement called Federation. Roscosmos plans on flying Federation while phasing out Soyuz. The same must be done for ISS.

NASA has plans for a deep space gateway situated in cislunar space as the next step on its path to get humans beyond low-Earth orbit. Image Credit: Nathan Koga / SpaceFlight Insider

NASA has plans for a deep space gateway situated in cislunar space as the next step on its path to get humans beyond low-Earth orbit. Image Credit: Nathan Koga / SpaceFlight Insider

US leadership in space

Moreover, there is the matter of leadership. The current administration has talked a lot about the importance of leadership, but what would signalling the premature end of the ISS say about American leadership in space?

One of the biggest accomplishments the ISS program is the bringing together of 16 countries over five major space agencies to build the most complex engineering project in the history of spaceflight. If the U.S. signals its interest in continuing the program is waning, that could mean other countries start to move beyond it as well.

NASA astronaut Mark Vande Hei with the Kestrel Eye IIM (KE2M) brought to the ISS by Nanoracks on a commercial Dragon spacecraft. It was deployed from the ISS via the company's Kaber Microsat Deployer. Photo Credit: Nanoracks / NASA

NASA astronaut Mark Vande Hei with the Kestrel Eye IIM (KE2M) brought to the ISS in 2017 by NanoRacks on a commercial Dragon spacecraft. It was deployed from the ISS via the company’s Kaber Microsat Deployer. Photo Credit: NanoRacks / NASA

While the hope is to transition these partnerships to a cislunar deep space gateway, as stated before, the likelihood of that getting off the ground, let alone human tended by or before 2025 is remote. ISS partner nations could move on and potentially join with the Chinese space station project, which is the only space station planned to be operational in the near-term, potentially as early as 2019. Should China open its outpost up to international and commercial partners, it would be yet another blow for U.S. leadership in space.

Additionally, many companies have their near-term business models anchored to the ISS. Take NanoRacks, for example. It sells space on commercial cargo spacecraft to send CubeSats on behalf of business, governments and educational institutions to the ISS to be deployed. The company is even building a private airlock to be attached to the outpost. Their business is booming, but without any alternatives (save for maybe a Chinese space station), they could face significant cutbacks in revenue.

The preeminent orbital research facility

The whole point of the ISS is to perform scientific research in a microgravity environment. The human-tended outpost is beginning to hit its stride with crews performing hundreds of experiments during each expedition, providing invaluable data for diseases on Earth, materials science, physics, and even human spaceflight research.

Designated as a U.S. national laboratory, some research is being organized by the Center for Advancement of Science in Space (CASIS), a non-government organization selected to manage the research portion of the outpost. 

CASIS promotes and brokers research ranging from life sciences, physical sciences, remote sensing, technology development and much more. It also provides seed money, via funding from the U.S. government, for research and development. According to its website, the organization has selected more than 200 ISS research projects since 2011 to advance the United States’ leadership in commercial space and pursue science not possible on Earth.

Without any replacement to transition to, this research will end and it could take years to reestablish the pace that companies and research facilities are currently at. According to NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations Bill Gerstenmaier at the 68th International Astronautical Congress in September 2017, there are entities that want to invest in the space station’s facilities, “but the payback and return requires maybe longer than the amount of time between 2017 and 2024.”

This suggests that signaling an end to the outpost by 2025 now would begin to stifle investment in the complex. Why start designing something to go to a place for only a couple years at best? The Commercial Crew Program will have similar issues it will have to face with only five or six years of operations before the potential end of the complex.

Additionally, the space station is coming up on a very important milestone. On Nov. 2, 2020, the program is expected to celebrate 20 years of continual human presence in space. That is something that should not be given up and should be built on. The experience of operating and maintaining (both ground-based and on-orbit) a human-tended facility 24/7 for decades cannot be lost if humanity is to expand beyond LEO to the Moon and Mars.

European Space Agency astronaut Tim Peake performs an exam on his eye as part of the ocular health study. This research will help in understanding why some astronauts and cosmonauts have vision problems after long-duration spaceflight. Photo Credit: NASA

European Space Agency astronaut Tim Peake performs an exam on his eye as part of the ocular health study. This research will help in understanding why some astronauts and cosmonauts have vision problems after long-duration spaceflight. If humans are to regularly travel and stay beyond low-Earth orbit, this medical issue will likely need a countermeasure. Photo Credit: NASA

No real transition could lead to an even worse situation

Sure, commercial activities could be continued at future cislunar destinations, but again, if past is prologue, there will be a multi-year gap if no purposeful transition plan is put forth. And with the now-too-common four-to-eight-year presidential redirects, any gap risks losing both the ISS and any inevitable over-budget lunar program. Come 2025, NASA could be in the same situation it was in with the end of the Shuttle program—too late to extend it further even if it wanted to.

A Cygnus CRS OA-6 spacecraft grappled by Canadarm2

The Cygnus OA-6 spacecraft is grappled by Canadarm2 in March 2016. If there is a destination gap starting in 2025, current commercial cargo and future commercial crew spacecraft may have to stay grounded for years. Photo Credit: NASA

Primarily because of politics, Apollo ended just when those involved were getting good at lunar exploration. While there were very real safety concerns, the Space Shuttle was retired before the most-flown of the orbiters flew two-fifths of its design life. Now, ISS funding could be cut off just as a fledgling commercial industry is starting to get off the ground.

For once in NASA’s history, it needs an actual transition from one human spaceflight program to another—with overlap.

That isn’t to say that moving beyond LEO is an unworth plan. Quite the contrary, it is a necessity in humanity’s quest to expand into space. But while it seems like NASA cannot have its Moon Pie and eat it too, transitioning away from the ISS needs to be done in a way that builds upon the current step space agencies and industry are on.

Not all of this is the fault of politics, however. As of early December 2017, NASA has yet to produce a viable ISS transition plan mandated by law. The space agency, too, is dragging its feet on the issue and if it doesn’t put forth some sort of plan, politicians will—and many know how qualified they are at designing space programs.

Building a spacefaring industry

People have said ending the Apollo program and moving to a reusable Shuttle to build a space station was a mistake. Maybe they were right in the 1970s. But the reality of the situation is this is now 2018. There is an existing research platform being used by a fledgling commercial industry. For better or worse, they need the ISS in order to stay viable in the near-term.

While some on the political right might say that any business that cannot stand on its own should not be in business—which is true in general—there is precedent for government subsidizing companies for the public good. Railroads and highways are good examples.

Ending funding for the sole destination in LEO before industry can take over at least partially would be self defeating as it removes a viable near-term business model to sustain itself while building up bigger, expanded business cases that could help NASA with expanding beyond low-Earth orbit with public-private partnerships like the Trump administration wants to do. Industry won’t be ready by 2025, but they might be by 2028.

As LEO becomes more self sustaining, NASA can work to begin establishing a similar human presence in cislunar space—and they can bring industry along for the ride with lessons learned from ISS, the Commercial Resupply Services program, and the Commercial Crew Program.

If maintaining ISS until it is no longer safe or commercial companies can take over means delaying human Lunar or Martian ambitions, so be it. It would be better to take baby steps than fall back several large steps in hopes for another giant leap that could put NASA’s human spaceflight program in the same situation it found itself in after 1972.

This is not how you make America great again, this is how you begin to put it in the dustbin of history.

An orbital sunset as seen from the ISS. Photo Credit: NASA

An orbital sunset as seen from the ISS. Photo Credit: NASA


The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not, necessarily, reflect those of SpaceFlight Insider.


Derek Richardson has a degree in mass media, with an emphasis in contemporary journalism, from Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas. While at Washburn, he was the managing editor of the student run newspaper, the Washburn Review. He also has a website about human spaceflight called Orbital Velocity. You can find him on twitter @TheSpaceWriter.

Reader Comments

There is a need for a research and development facility in low earth orbit.

Should end it NOW. 40 years of LEO space stations is enough! No product of any significant value has been developed after hundreds of billion of dollars expended. The human research is done and the conclusion crystal clear: lack of Earth gravity and elevated radiation levels are unacceptable. Massive shielding (water lifted out of the lunar gravity well) and tether generated artificial gravity are the basic prerequisites.
We need to move on to Low Lunar Orbit (LLO). And to do that the dead ends of LEO, and Mars, need to be abandoned. I would really like to write a rebuttal to this article if it would be considered by the editor.

Feb. 4, 2018

Mr. Church,
Given the sheer volume of your comments, we feel you’re already rebutting any and everything you don’t agree with.
Jason Rhian – Editor, SpaceFlight Insider

My 111 word comment covers “anything and everything” concerning Mr. Richardson’s 1984 word opinion?
If you say so.

Feb. 4, 2018

Mr. Church,
No your responding to every single comment by anyone with whom you even slightly disagree exceeds Mr. Richardson’s 1984 word count article (and then some). I’ve lost count of the times we’ve asked you to not respond to any and everyone, but you appear incapable of comprehending what we’ve asked of you and unwilling to not assail those whose views differ from your own. We’ve tried to be patient and to work with you, but your default setting appears to be one of attacking others and, quite frankly, we’re tired of asking you to learn to treat others with some (any) respect.
Jason Rhian – Editor, SpaceFlight Insider

Thank you, Mr. Rhian.

With NASA’s extremely limited human spaceflight related budget, extending the $3 to $4 billion a year ISS program beyond 2015 was an enormous mistake. That $9 to $12 billion could have been used for NASA’s beyond LEO program.

There’s nothing wrong with having microgravity habitats at LEO. Private companies like Bigelow are going to be deploying their own within the next few years.

The ISS centralized configuration was also a huge mistake. At least two smaller space stations should have been assembled in order to allow twice as many astronauts and scientist to utilize the facilities. This would have allowed astronauts at one station to seek refuge at the other station in case of an emergency unlike today’s situation where they’d have to simply return home to Earth.

Also, a single SLS launch could deploy two Skylab-like propellant tank derived habits to LEO, each with a pressurized volume exceeding that of the ISS.


ISS was completed in summer 2011. Ending ISS at tbe close of FY 2015 would have been Sept 30, 2015. So your position is we should have terminated the $150 billion ISS (ref wikipedia cost of ISS) after only four years of operation after taking 13 years (1998-2011) to get it fully assembled?

Ok. That would have been an approach.

As I pointed out earlier, the ISS was wrongly designed in the first place.

You’re also assuming that the end of the ISS would be the end of microgravity space habitats. And I simply don’t believe that is true. There’s no doubt in my mind that larger and cheaper microgravity habitats will succeed the ISS in the 2020s and 2030s.

But if the Congress is really in support of the ISS and beyond LEO missions to the Moon and Mars then they should simply raise NASA’s annual human spaceflight related budget by three to five billion dollars.


Thank you Mr. Richardson for this piece- a most imtelligent and very well worded article, certainly one of the best I have read on this matter.

The ISS is in LEO Low Earth Orbit. It’s impossible to reach outer space due to the Van Allen Radiation Belts. The Russians attempts in the early sixty’s resulted in a monkey severly burned and dead. Outer space and satellites are Science Fiction.

So how did all those alleged UFOs ever get here?

ISS is currently the only space destination available to and capable of being reached by humans. Seems to me that it would be foolish to discard it before a replacement was actually flying. Not only is there still valuable research being undertaken but it maintains unique skills for those lucky few who work there.

Jan. 4, 2018
Hi Neil,
Sounds like the same argument many made about the space shuttle as we awaited its replacement.
Sincerely, Jason Rhian – Editor, SpaceFlight Insider

Yes Jason I agree that would seem to be the case however there is one major difference and that is that no one is calling the ISS on safety, at least not yet whereas the Shuttle was found to have some major safety issues which as far as I’m aware were never fully addressed.

Feb. 4, 2018
That’s not exactly accurate. This year parts of the ISS will have been in the highly dangerous space environment that has surely worn these components down for 20 years. Moreover, one of the chief issues raised about NASA’s plans for transportation to the station are safety concerns about the Falcon family of rockets tasked with launching the Crew Dragon spacecraft. While it’s tempting to only note certain aspects, to exclude others is to paint an incomplete picture of the actual situation.

Hi Jason.
Yes I forgotten about reading a report once concerning some aspects of the ISS reaching end of life so thanks for the reminder but I do hope it will keep flying until another destination is available – in relative safety for the people on board of course.

Concerning the F9 as a launch vehicle for astronauts let me simply refer you to the following link:
It’s not just SpaceX thatS struggling with really risk-averse government agencies and I agree completely with what Robert Zimmerman is saying here.
Basically if we don’t start accepting practical levels of risk the human race is forever consigned to this one planet. This is something I sincerely hope is not humanity’s future.

Thanks for your insight and the great articles. Keep ’em coming.

Thank you for the article Mr. Richardson and also to Mr. Rhian for your comments (re having a knowledge base).
Funding, funding, funding says it all. We’ll, at least funding is a heck of a big issue.

The more I looking at the need for a well managed transition, the more I am concerned that it isn’t happening. But we absolutely need to develop a transition strategy. There is so much value in LEO. However, the discussion is focused not no ensuring LEO activity, but on how long we keep ISS going. Even if we suddenly decided to extend ISS, having only a single destination in LEO makes it vulnerable.

We need to start figuring/managing the transition now. And that means 2 things
1) We need to tie the lifetime of ISS to new commercial space stations (this could include re-purposing ISS or some of it’s pieces – I’ll let the engineers sort this out). But ISS shouldn’t go away until we have at least 1 (and arguably 2) operational commercial stations.
2) We need to prioritize activity at ISS so that it enables commercial space stations and commercial activity to come online ASAP. There are a lot of activities NASA could do to help enable new space stations sooner rather than later.

These 2 pieces of a gapless transition strategy are needed. Here is hoping we follow-through

We don’t own the ISS, but are never-the-less obligated to pay for it. Russia could detach it’s portion and still have a fully functional station, our “half” would just drift off.

China, wisely, doesn’t want to be part of this international mess and will likely go it alone despite failures along the way.

I doubt that Russia would or could separate their section or that they could support it by themselves. International cooperation in space is a good thing, if only this came out of the ISS it would still have been worth it. I don’t think scuttling the station without a replacement is a good idea, it seems to be the only location that can provide observation of medical issues encountered during stays outside of Earth’s inner atmosphere. Better cancel a few seemingly planned wars and keep the military budget in check instead of shutting down one of the major international cooperation hubs without proper replacement plans.

I believe we should end the “Trump Administration” long before 2022. Decommissioning the ISS is among the more ridiculous statements Trump has made. We cannot let an incompetent, political-neophyte-moron move us toward this catastrophe. Please write to your Congressman/woman and to your Senators. Please.

⚠ Commenting Rules

Post Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *