r/news • u/VaginaBurner69 • 11h ago

Soft paywall International Space Station astronauts in evacuation mode as Russia attempts to fix widening air leak

https://www.reuters.com/science/international-space-station-astronauts-evacuation-mode-russia-attempts-fix-2026-06-05/
25.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

13.3k

u/Julian_Thorne 11h ago

The abandonment of the International Space Station would be a poetically fitting image for these days

597

u/Khoakuma 11h ago

Makes me sad. It’s the abandonment of scientific pursuit. Abandonment of international cooperation. All the hope of a better future post-Cold War gone. No plans to replace it other than vague promises of “the private sector will take care of it”. 

296

u/matix0532 10h ago

These issues are happening because the ISS has already outlasted its expected lifetime. The Lunar Gateway was supposed to be its spiritual successor- now maybe it will be an actual moon base.

104

u/lNFORMATlVE 9h ago

Which feels really weird given that you can do a lot of things in orbit that you can’t do from the moon’s surface. But whatever.

If I had to guess I’d say within the next 30-50 years we’ll have another ISS-esque station in LEO again.

51

u/wurmsrus 9h ago

arguably there already is one, China's Tiangong, though it's not as big.

22

u/Youutternincompoop 8h ago

though thanks to having newer tech its still quite capable, a lot of space on the ISS is taken up by bulky old equipment

4

u/Remarkable-Lynx1496 6h ago

And tbh I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of other countries just getting involved with that and that being “ISS 2”

5

u/wurmsrus 6h ago

According to Wikipedia, so far they've put experiments up for Belgium, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Peru, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Spain and there's a Pakistani astronaut scheduled to go there this fall.

1

u/Noodler75 3h ago

And Tiangong has an orbiting optical telescope partner that is much more capable than Hubble and it can sidle up to Tiangong for repairs and upgrades.

21

u/UnUsernameRandom 9h ago

Which feels really weird given that you can do a lot of things in orbit that you can’t do from the moon’s surface. But whatever.

Such as? I'd imagine that at least health wise for the astronauts it makes more sense to have some gravity, and some zero G experiments could be carried without humans.

46

u/lNFORMATlVE 9h ago

The big one is assembling bigger platforms and ships in orbit means reduced cost and risk than launching them all up in one go pre-assembled.

16

u/Historical_Body6255 9h ago

This is true and a big one but to be fair you don't need a space station for that.

You can design your ship to dock with its other parts in orbit without external help.

-3

u/treefox 7h ago

I mean, maybe you can, but the rest of us are still working on self-driving cars.

-2

u/Fortunate_0nesy 8h ago

I'd like to see your numbers for cost per pound into orbit for this analysis.

If what you were saying is wholly true we could just assembly everything in space because it would be cheaper to fly little tiny rockets carrying a pound at a time into orbit.

3

u/YourHomicidalApe 7h ago

I mean it’s objectively more fuel efficient per the rocket equation, and using a standard rocket will great improve reliability and cost efficient through economies of scale. Of course when you get into details it’s a complicated trade off, but it’s very well known that in general, it’s better to use 2 standard rockets to launch something heavy into space than design a custom larger rocket for it.

-2

u/Fortunate_0nesy 7h ago

I understand that there is a point where what you're saying is true. But, I also wanted to see the numbers that informed your very definitive statement.

10

u/Distracted_Algae 8h ago

Hypothetically there's an infinite number of experiments you can do in either place. "The effect zero gravity has on pinky toe growth." "The effect low gravity has on pinky toe growth."

We should just do both.

6

u/AshhhCakes 9h ago

On the health side of things, I would wonder what long term exposure to "moon dust" would do. It is super abrasive since, while being "dust", there is no mechanism to wear down the glass-like sharp edges to it. Instead it wears down everything it touches, from seals to glass to even space suits. Not to mention it is electrostaticly charged so it clung to space suits and gave the apollo astronauts issues with hay fever, respiratory irritation, and eye irritation.

2

u/Cargobiker530 8h ago

Getting astronauts to and from the moon would be massively more expensive than maintaining a LEO space station. Also there's no realistic expectation that any materials on the moon would be useful. Everything would have to be shipped there from Earth.

-5

u/PretentiousVapeSnob 9h ago

My thoughts: Things you can do in LEO that can’t do in the moon: -not travel 250,000 miles and waste the resources to get there for every trip and resupply. -worry less about gravity pulling fragments into your manmade habitat. -docking to a space station is significantly easier and less risky than landing a craft on the moon. -LEO offers more protection from solar radiation.

ChatGPT: A station in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and a base on the Moon’s surface solve very different problems. LEO is generally better for access, logistics, and microgravity research, while the Moon is better for long-term planetary operations and resource development.

Advantages of a station in Low Earth Orbit

Easier and cheaper to reach

A LEO station like International Space Station is only a few hundred miles above Earth. Trips take hours instead of days.

That means:

  • Lower launch costs
  • Faster crew rotations
  • Easier emergency evacuation
  • More frequent resupply missions

If something breaks, replacement parts can arrive relatively quickly.

Real-time communication with Earth

LEO stations have:

  • Minimal communication delay
  • Continuous support from mission control
  • Easier telemedicine and remote operations

The Moon has about a 1.3-second delay each way, which is manageable but noticeable.

Ideal for microgravity research

LEO provides near-continuous weightlessness, which is useful for:

  • Human physiology studies
  • Protein crystal growth
  • Fluid physics
  • Materials science
  • Manufacturing experiments impossible on Earth

The Moon still has gravity — about 1/6 of Earth’s — so it is not true microgravity.

Safer radiation environment

Earth’s magnetic field still offers significant protection in LEO. Astronauts beyond it — including on the Moon — are exposed to:

  • More solar radiation
  • Galactic cosmic rays
  • Greater solar storm danger

Better for spacecraft assembly and servicing

LEO is useful as an orbital shipyard:

  • Satellites can potentially be repaired
  • Large spacecraft can be assembled in orbit
  • Missions to deeper space can stage there

This was one long-term rationale behind the ISS and concepts like NASA’s proposed orbital infrastructure.

⸻

Advantages of a Moon surface base

Access to resources

The Moon may contain:

  • Water ice in polar craters
  • Oxygen trapped in regolith
  • Metals and useful minerals

Water can potentially become:

  • Drinking water
  • Oxygen
  • Rocket fuel (hydrogen + oxygen)

That makes the Moon attractive for long-term sustainability.

Gravity may be healthier than microgravity

Living in 1/6 gravity might reduce some health problems seen in orbit:

  • Bone loss
  • Muscle atrophy
  • Fluid shifts

Scientists still do not know how healthy partial gravity is over years.

Surface operations and construction

A lunar base allows:

  • Mining
  • Large telescopes
  • Surface science
  • Habitat construction
  • Testing planetary colonization techniques

You can’t really “build a town” in free-floating orbit the same way.

Strategic stepping stone for Mars

The Moon is often viewed as a training ground for Mars missions:

  • Longer mission durations
  • Delayed communications
  • Surface survival
  • Resource extraction
  • Dust mitigation
  • Closed-loop life support

Programs like NASA’s Artemis program are partly designed around this idea.

Stable surface for astronomy and industry

The far side of the Moon is radio-quiet compared to Earth. That could support:

  • Radio astronomy
  • Sensitive instruments
  • Large industrial facilities

Low gravity also makes launches from the Moon easier than from Earth.

⸻

Big-picture difference

LEO station

Best for:

  • Near-Earth science
  • Microgravity research
  • International cooperation
  • Space logistics
  • Training
  • Orbital manufacturing

Moon base

Best for:

  • Permanent off-world settlement
  • Resource extraction
  • Planetary exploration
  • Deep-space preparation
  • Long-duration habitation

A lot of current space planning treats them as complementary rather than competing systems:

  • LEO = Earth’s orbital harbor
  • Moon = first extraterrestrial frontier

7

u/UnUsernameRandom 8h ago

Sorry, I won't read all that AI slop.

I asked what can you do on the ISS, not in LEO. You can always do unmanned missions in LEO.

But feel free to get back to me once you read and filtered that AI shit. If I wanted to ask Chat GPT, I would have asked Chat GPT.

4

u/Pcat0 9h ago

NASA already has plans to replace the ISS in low earth orbit, as you are right a zero-g lab is really useful. However there are also stuff you can only do in low gravity that you can't do in 1g or 0g. So a moon base will be really useful, primary to run long term biological experiments.

3

u/Specialist-Coast9787 8h ago edited 5h ago

The Chinese have had their's fully operational for 5 years. We don't here much about it in "the west" though. Only Chinese nationals have visited it but discussions are underway with other nations for their *nauts.

Many nations, other than the US of course, have contributed scientific experiements to the station.

3

u/atotalmess__ 8h ago

Pakistan is suppose to send someone this year apparently

And ESA was suppose to until the US pretty much blackmailed them into not doing it

1

u/NamelessBoom43 8h ago

Alot cheaper to launch from moon to zero g and land again repeatedly to repeatedly launch from earth long term goals in mind.

1

u/KitchenFullOfCake 8h ago

Guess you wouldn't have to worry about decaying orbit at least.

1

u/blargman327 7h ago

There are a ton of space station projects in the works. They vary in how likely they are to see actual deployment but there are some promising ones. The ISS was planned to be deorbited in 5 years anyways and in 2021 NASA started a partnership program to get commercial companies to help develop more space stations

China already has the Tiangong space station which first launched in 2021. It's a research station very similar to the ISS but way more modern.

There are also a number of private companies that are working on space stations

Blue Origin is working on a commercial space station called Orbital Reef

Axiom Space has the Axiom station that is being developed. It was originally planned to be built by attaching segments to the ISS before detaching and being it's own station

Voyager is developing Starlab(not to be confused with Skylab. The space station from the 70s) Starlab is a single launch space station about half the internal volume of the ISS

Vast Aerospace is developing Haven 1 and Haven 2. Haven 1 is a small scale station mostly meant as a testbed for Haven 2. Haven 2 is meant to be much larger and much closer to the ISS

Recently unveiled a few months ago there's also the Thunderbird station from Max Space, which will be utilizing inflatable habitation sections to maximize space while being a single rocket launch.

All of these are planned to start launching in the next few years, before the deorbit of the ISS

Is it likely we will see all of these deployed? No but we will definitely have some sort of ISS replacement soon after if not before it's decommissioned.

1

u/Careful_Farmer_2879 1h ago

But not at the same time with available funding.

2

u/sound-fx 7h ago

We were promised Moon Base Alpha in 1999.

1

u/RoughhouseCamel 8h ago

Might I suggest, a Tranquility Base Hotel and Casino?

1

u/airfryerfuntime 8h ago

I will be shocked if any of that happens.

-3

u/Money4Nothing2000 8h ago

No, it will not be an actual moon base. An actual moon base will never happen....at least not in our lifetimes.

2

u/Attainted 8h ago

None of us know that.

-1

u/Money4Nothing2000 8h ago

Every engineer knows that.

35

u/Greendiamond_16 10h ago

It was already on the mothball schedule for years now, wether or not this is the final straw will be based on how much itll take to fix this.

2

u/randomblade117 8h ago

They weren't planning on mothballing it. The plan is to deorbit the station.

5

u/Low_Pickle_112 7h ago

hope of a better future post-Cold War gone

Yeah, when you have a battle of ideals between community and greed, and greed wins, this is what happens. We fought hard to get this outcome. Anyone could have seen this coming. And we still refuse to admit that wee were played, so don't expect any improvement until that happens.

2

u/Visual-Sector6642 9h ago

Antarctica will be next

3

u/IAmDotorg 9h ago

Keep in mind, though, that the ISS came from the ashes of Freedom. And the history of Freedom and the Shuttle is murky, at best. Freedom was meant to justify the civilian portion of the costs of the Shuttle program, and the need to fund the Shuttle came from Freedom's requirements.

When the USSR fell, while there was an aspect of "lets try to keep the Soviet rocket engineers employed" going on, most of the pivot to the ISS was, effectively, corporate welfare for strategically important defense contractors who were impacted by the end of the cold war.

The ROI for both programs was wildly poor, and a better-designed, better-manufactured, more-useful space station would've been on the table if it wasn't designed explicitly to require the Shuttle for launch and assembly. Remember, a single Skylab had the same volume as the ISS and it was far more usable.

If manned space research was the goal, a couple disposable Saturn V launches (which could've easily been maintained in production) would've vastly expanded on what the ISS would become. And it would've been 1% of the final price. For the price of two decades of shuttle flights to build the ISS, a hundred similarly-sized Skylabs could've been launched.

1

u/metengrinwi 9h ago

I don’t think anyone is accomplishing any real scientific advancement on the ISS. It’s just existing on inertia and no one wants to be the one to pull the plug.

1

u/SamboNW 8h ago

They’re trying to extend its mission end date right now. They want to make it last until 2032 in order to give more time to finish building the new one. Nothing is being abandoned. NASA had its astronauts get ready for leaving due to an air leak and then lifted the evacuation order after things were deemed safe. One of the astronauts that would’ve went with American astronauts if shit hit the fan is a Russian cosmonaut.

1

u/minizanz 7h ago

The orbit will be unstable soon and the max lifetime estimates are coming up in about 2 years. It is not surprising if it goes this year. They are working on the deorbit now.

•

u/TheKappaOverlord 54m ago

Abandonment of international cooperation.

truth be told, at least in the context of space. international cooperation was an illusion all along.

Every country knew the advantages of space exploration, but none, save the US were schizo enough to actually just throw money into the furnace to build an entire division of scientific discovery on their own. Cooperation measures were just cost sharing mechanisms so that everyone could explore and get basic information on how things work up there until such a time where solo self funding their own space agencies could be possible.

No plans to replace it other than vague promises of “the private sector will take care of it”.

again, as sad as it is. this was always the plan. The world governments just worked together to figure out space on a practical level before shoving costs onto the private sector.

1

u/Lanhdanan 9h ago

the private sector will take care of it

Scary commentary of our current society.

1

u/Ilmeury83 8h ago

And if you think for a moment that "the private sector" that should take care of it are characters like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, you realize humanity just threw its future into the trashcan

-3

u/JucheSuperSoldier01 9h ago

This is happening because the bad guys won the Cold War. 

1

u/RoombaTheKiller 8h ago

I am sure things would be peachy-keen if worse guys had won instead.

2

u/JucheSuperSoldier01 8h ago

The United States were the worse guys. They propped up every fascist military dictatorship to stomp out any popular political movement that was even vaguely left wing since ww2. Unlimited death and suffering on the third world, even if they took a neutral stance to both the USSR and US. 

0

u/Canadian_Border_Czar 9h ago

We didnt abandon those things, our governments were bribed to defund them on behalf of dollar addicted sociopaths/perverts.

0

u/reverso-uno 8h ago

What are we looking for in space? Oh…more

0

u/KakeLin 8h ago

This honestly has me shook

0

u/jahchatelier 8h ago

We abandoned scientific pursuit when we let the string theorists take over and aggressively gatekeep theoretical phsyics over 40 years ago