The ISS is about to retire, and US lawmakers are getting worried. They want NASA to promise that when one station burns up in the atmosphere, American astronauts will already have another home in space.
The ISS is running out of time.
The International Space Station is officially set to fall out of orbit by 2030. By that time, the aging complex will have been home to people for more than 30 years.
It won’t be easy for it to say goodbye. The last plan is to slowly lower the station and then steer it into the Earth’s atmosphere. There, most of its 400-tonne structure will break up and burn over a remote part of the Pacific Ocean.
That leaves a clear question: what happens the next day?
The ISS is living on borrowed time, and Washington still doesn’t have a fully credible replacement.
At least on paper, the US’s vision is clear. NASA wants to stop owning and running a single government-run outpost and instead rent space on several privately built commercial stations. But having paperwork and PowerPoint is one thing; having hardware that works in space is another.
Senators want NASA to keep people on the moon.
Politics are now getting involved because people are worried about a possible gap. Staff members of Texas Republican Ted Cruz in the US Senate have been unusually honest with Nasa officials.
Madeline Davis, a key advisor in Cruz’s office, has said that it would not be okay for people to stop going into orbit. Her message, which she gave at a recent public event, was clear: the US should go straight from working on the ISS to working on commercial stations.
Senate staff keep telling NASA managers, “There must be continuous human presence, with no gap.”
Cruz, who oversees science and transportation policy and represents the state where Nasa’s Johnson Space Center is located in Houston, is urging the agency to speed up its plans for a commercial station. Texas has thousands of jobs connected to human spaceflight, and a break in crewed missions could hurt both the state’s economy and the country’s reputation.
What worries about a gap Washington
For US lawmakers, the lack of people in orbit is not just a technical problem. It also has to do with geopolitics, business, and symbols.
Strategic influence: If the US weren’t in low-Earth orbit, Russia and China would have more freedom to shape future partnerships.
Continuity in industry: Engineers, suppliers, and astronauts need steady work to keep their skills sharp and keep good workers.
Public image: The ISS is now a well-known sign of American and allied leadership in space. It could be bad for politics to lose that spotlight.
Some people in Washington are worried that international crews will move from a retired ISS to a Chinese-led outpost because China is building up its own Tiangong space station and inviting other countries to join in.
Nasa’s bet on a commercial station
There is a big change in NASA’s official plan: instead of building the next space station itself, the agency is paying companies to design and run new orbital platforms and then buying services from them.
Several projects are at different points in the design and early hardware development stages. Their names are different, but the basic idea is the same: smaller, more modular stations for research, tourism, and industry, with NASA astronauts as the main tenants.
| Key challenge | Why it matters for post-ISS plans |
|---|---|
| Technical readiness | Stations must survive years in orbit and support crews safely. |
| Funding stability | Commercial partners rely on predictable Nasa contracts and private investment. |
| Launch capability | New heavy-lift and crew vehicles must be available on a regular schedule. |
| International partners | Europe, Japan, Canada and others need clear roles after the ISS era. |
What will happen if there is a gap?
In Washington’s space circles, there are two very different scenarios being talked about, even though the agency language is polite.
Scenario 1: a smooth transfer
In the best-case scenario, at least one commercial station makes it to orbit and finishes crewed testing before the ISS is retired. NASA then slowly moves experiments, astronauts, and international partners to this new hub while shutting down operations on the ISS.
In this case, the biggest problems are going over budget and having trouble with scheduling, but there are always people in orbit.
Scenario 2: the pause in orbit
An “orbital pause” lasting several years is the most worrying possibility. If commercial projects don’t happen until the 2030s and the ISS can’t be safely extended, NASA will have a problem.
It could only do short missions in free-flying spacecraft or rely on stations that weren’t in the US. Both choices would cut down on the steady flow of research that needs a permanent lab.
A gap of several years would end a human presence in orbit that has been there since 2000.
For astronauts, this would mean fewer long missions, fewer chances to train, and maybe even a change in their career paths. Experiments on materials, biology, and medicine in microgravity that last for decades could be cut short for scientists.
The ISS is still important right now
The ISS is still a busy orbital campus, even though everyone is talking about its end. Crews are still testing space medicine, robotics, and other things that will be important for future missions to the Moon and Mars.
Researchers use microgravity to learn about how bones get thinner, how germs change, and how flames act when there is no convection. Companies do tests on new alloys, protein crystals, and fiber optics in the hopes of finding something that makes the cost of getting to space worth it.
The station is also a one-of-a-kind place for diplomacy. Even though things are tense on Earth, US and Russian crews still eat together, do maintenance, and practice for emergencies. Any future station, whether it is private or public, will have to decide how much of that partnership model stays in place.
Important ideas behind the argument
What “deorbiting” really means
When officials say the ISS will be “deorbited,” they mean that NASA and its partners will use engines to slowly lower its height. Most of the structure will be heated and torn apart by friction with the upper atmosphere.
Only a small number will make it to the surface of the ocean, which is aimed at a remote area known as the “spacecraft cemetery.” To keep debris from spreading near populated areas, this process is necessary to stop an uncontrolled re-entry.
Low-Earth orbit as a place to train
The ISS flies in low-Earth orbit (LEO), which is about 400 km above the Earth’s surface. This area is close enough for quick resupply and emergency returns, but far enough away to give people a taste of what it’s like to live in deep space.
Future crews on the Moon and Mars will need to have done long missions in low Earth orbit. That means learning how to deal with stress, fix life-support systems, and take care of medical problems without going to the hospital right away.
It would be harder to keep and improve many of those skills without a station in LEO.
Risks and chances in the time after the ISS
Not only do they have to avoid failing, but they also have to deal with a lot of stress. It’s also about taking advantage of a business opportunity. If private stations do well, they could let new types of businesses into orbit, like drug companies, movie studios, industrial manufacturers, and even national space agencies that have never been able to join ISS.
At the same time, new risks come up. There is more space junk in LEO, and more stations could make things even worse. Safety rules, rescue plans, and traffic management will all have to change to keep up with busier orbits.
Right now, Congress’s message is clear: the ISS countdown is real, and NASA needs to stop being careful with its timelines and start building real hardware. The next few budget cycles and contract awards will show if that pressure leads to action before the station’s last fiery fall.
