There's too much debris up there to do what you propose. The ISS would just be another nucleation point for more debris. We have TBs of data from the ISS and that's where preservation efforts are being focused.

https://www.space.com/iss-astronauts-shelter-return-spacecraft-satellite-breakup

https://www.nasa.gov/faqs-the-international-space-station-transition-plan/

[–] lunar17@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's not completely accurate. As the NASA link you shared explains, the normal orbit for the ISS is relatively low at 400km, where atmospheric drag and orbital debris pose a risk. The article agrees that the station could be raised into a graveyard orbit (where it could safely remain for several hundred years; this a standard way to retire space hardware), but this would require more delta V than for a controlled deorbit. In turn, this means a more expensive booster vehicle and mission.

So, the ISS could be safely preserved in high orbit, but no one is willing to pay the price to move it there. This makes me a bit sad, as it means the most expensive and impressive engineering project undertaken by humanity to date will be destroyed.

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The industry is moving into the space station space (pardon the pun). NASA is focused on a moon base now.

https://time.com/6163554/private-space-stations/

The ISS outlived its* initial mission role almost a decade ago.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Its* initial mission

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Wow being corrected by the worst student at Springfield elementary is a rare honor

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The honor is mine.

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Let's build a museum past the moon!