Return to Answer

The ISS is not designed to be run unmanned, entirely. The staff on board, when there are 6 astronauts, between excercise, sleeping, and maintenance get a single person-day of science work completed. (That is an 8 hour days' worth).

The ISS is at a fairly low orbit, so that Soyuz, Dragon, CST-100, Cygnus, and the Shuttle can reach it. Deorbiting it will take significantly less fuel than boosting its orbit to something that will not reenter in the long term. Even more so compared to boosting it to escape velocity from Earth. Nor is it designed to sustain the kind of thrust that would be needed to get to escape velocity.

Why not keep it manned longer? We have discussed this in many other questions and answers on the site before:

• Reusing the US Modules like the Russians plan
• Boosting the ISS and structural Integrity
• How much fuel to deorbit the ISS
• Moving ISS to the Moon
• What would happen if we stopped maintaining the ISS?

The ISS is not designed to be run unmanned, entirely. The staff on board, when there are 6 astronauts, between exercise, sleeping, and maintenance get a single person-day of science work completed. (That is an 8 hour days' worth).

The ISS is at a fairly low orbit, so that Soyuz, Dragon, CST-100, Cygnus, and the Shuttle can reach it. De-orbiting it will take significantly less fuel than boosting its orbit to something that will not reenter in the long term. Even more so compared to boosting it to escape velocity from Earth. Nor is it designed to sustain the kind of thrust that would be needed to get to escape velocity using existing hardware on station, or existing technologies. (I am ignore VASIMIR and relying on existing technologies.)

Why not keep it manned longer? We have discussed this in many other questions and answers on the site before:

• Reusing the US Modules like the Russians plan
• Boosting the ISS and structural Integrity
• How much fuel to deorbit the ISS
• Moving ISS to the Moon
• What would happen if we stopped maintaining the ISS?

The ISS is not designed to be run unmanned, entirely. The staff on board, when there are 6 astronauts, between excercise, sleeping, and maintenance get a single person-day of science work completed. (That is an 8 hour day's worth).

The ISS is at a fairly low orbit, so that Soyuz, Dragon, CST-100, Cygnus, and the Shuttle can reach it. Deorbiting it will take significantly less fuel than boosting its orbit to something that will not reenter in the long term. Even more so compared to boosting it to escape velocity from Earth. Nor is it designed to sustain the kind of thrust that would be needed to get to escape velocity.

Why not keep it manned longer? We have discussed this in many other questions and answers on the site before:

• Reusing the US Modules like the Russians plan
• Boosting the ISS and structural Integrity
• How much fuel to deorbit the ISS
• Moving ISS to the Moon
• What would happen if we stopped maintaining the ISS?

The ISS is not designed to be run unmanned, entirely. The staff on board, when there are 6 astronauts, between excercise, sleeping, and maintenance get a single person-day of science work completed. (That is an 8 hour days' worth).

The ISS is at a fairly low orbit, so that Soyuz, Dragon, CST-100, Cygnus, and the Shuttle can reach it. Deorbiting it will take significantly less fuel than boosting its orbit to something that will not reenter in the long term. Even more so compared to boosting it to escape velocity from Earth. Nor is it designed to sustain the kind of thrust that would be needed to get to escape velocity.

Why not keep it manned longer? We have discussed this in many other questions and answers on the site before:

• Reusing the US Modules like the Russians plan
• Boosting the ISS and structural Integrity
• How much fuel to deorbit the ISS
• Moving ISS to the Moon
• What would happen if we stopped maintaining the ISS?

The ISS is not designed to be run unmanned, entirely. The staff on board, when there are 6 astronauts, between excersize, sleeping, and maintenence get a single person-day of science work completed. (That is an 8 hour days worth).

The ISS is at a fairly low orbit, so that Soyuz, Dragon, CST-100, Cygnus, and the Shuttle would be able to reach it. Deorbiting it will take significantly less fuel than boosting its orbit to something that will not reenter in the long term. Even more so compared to boosting it to escape velocity from Earth. Nor is it designed to sustain that kind of thrust that would be needed to get to escape velocity.

Why not keep it manned longer? We have discussed this in many other questions and answers on the site before:

• Reusing the US Modules like the Russians plan
• Boosting the ISS and structural Integrity
• How much fuel to deorbit the ISS
• Moving ISS to the Moon
• What would happen if we stopped maintaining the ISS?

The ISS is not designed to be run unmanned, entirely. The staff on board, when there are 6 astronauts, between excercise, sleeping, and maintenance get a single person-day of science work completed. (That is an 8 hour day's worth).

The ISS is at a fairly low orbit, so that Soyuz, Dragon, CST-100, Cygnus, and the Shuttle can reach it. Deorbiting it will take significantly less fuel than boosting its orbit to something that will not reenter in the long term. Even more so compared to boosting it to escape velocity from Earth. Nor is it designed to sustain the kind of thrust that would be needed to get to escape velocity.

Why not keep it manned longer? We have discussed this in many other questions and answers on the site before:

• Reusing the US Modules like the Russians plan
• Boosting the ISS and structural Integrity
• How much fuel to deorbit the ISS
• Moving ISS to the Moon
• What would happen if we stopped maintaining the ISS?