Not now. But if technology advances rapidly enough before the end of mission, it could be possible. Or it might be that we can reuse it in space or parts of it.
Just answering this as a thought experiment. Whether we would want to do it is another matter.
Much could still happen before 2028 which I think has been suggested as a provisional end of mission (if it survives in good order until then, and nothing happens before then that means we have to bring it down). Is there anything that could make this possible in the near future?
For instance, if skylon is ready by then, it could launch 15 tons to orbit (equatorial LEO - less to an inclined orbit like the ISS). The idea is it could be used to bring supplies and new modules to space stations, but see no reason why it couldn't also return some of the parts of the ISS to Earth one module at a time if the desire was there and the money to pay for it. The website doesn't say what payload it could return to Earth.
Its payload bay is
There are several companies working on ways to get to space, but that seems perhaps one of the more likely to have a capability of returning fairly large payloads back to Earth gently.
SLS and the new Russian heavy lift will be able to launch huge amounts to LEO (a hundred tons in one go for the Russian one, and 70, then 130 metric tons for SLS), but not sure they could return ISS modules, because they are designed for lifting to orbit not return from orbit to Earth.
In principle, Russia could restart Buran, or the US could develop its own larger automated shuttle like Buran (its X37b shows it has capability of automated landing from space for a mini space shuttle) to return large modules to Earth.
But there's no sign of anyone doing that - this article has lots of images of Buran but in fact Russia is just restarting heavy lift like Energia, not Buran: Russia starts ambitious super-heavy space rocket project
You could also return them, in principle, using really huge parachutes, like the ballutes.
This is an actual photograph of a ballute from 2012 (cross between a balloon and a parachute)
A large trailing ballute has the advantage that it can de-orbit large payloads with minimal protection as the slow down happens higher up in the atmosphere and most of the effects are on the trailing ballute rather than the payload. Page on nasa.gov So if you wanted to return large payloads like the ISS to the Earth with the minimum of damage, that seems like the best technology, if you don't have a winged craft with a large payload capacity like Space Shuttle, Buran, or in future (maybe) Skylon.
But that again is like a major program just to try to save the ISS or at least return the modules as little damaged as possible.
If we had space mining by then, perhaps they would have developed large ballutes or similar methods to return payload to Earth.
If we have more extensive telerobotic assembly of spacecraft in orbit, and low cost lift of heavy mass to LEO, then, maybe the components of the ISS might be easier to reuse.
I think also that you could just keep boosting the ISS back to higher orbits, just as it has already several times, with nobody on board, if there was a strong wish to preserve it, until we have the capability to return it to Earth.
For instance, the plan is to attach a couple of Progress vehicles to assist it towards a controlled de-orbit. You could instead boost it to the highest orbit you can get it to with a couple of Progress launches - and commit yourself to sending a couple of Progress up to the ISS every few years (or whatever its equivalent is as technology improves), just to keep boosting it to keep it in a higher orbit, if you were willing to take on a recurring expense like that to maintain it as a "museum", either in space, or for future reuse of its materials in space, or to return to Earth as technology improves.
But that would be an on going expense, to no real gain. When you are talking about potentially spending billions of dollars, you probably need to argue a good case for it to have a chance.
Some of the modules can be saved and re-used for new space stations, or even, to build new spacecraft, e.g. to go to a Near Earth Asteroid, if you took just one module, say, and combined it with some form of propulsion sent up from Earth.
There is this 2010 idea, to detach one of the newest nodes of the ISS and send that on a deep space mission as a spaceship after refurbishment
The Russians have plans to re-use some of the modules for their future OSPEK space station.
So, some of it may be re-used.
But (unless some major technological advance happens quickly in the next decade), we will probably have to de-orbit most of it like all the previous space stations. Similarly to Skylab and MIR.
However, a space station can last several decades from when you start build - so, depending on whatever technology we have say 30 or 40 years from now, we may not need to de-orbit the next space station(s) after the ISS.
If the costs go right down, for future space stations, it might then make more sense to reuse it in space - or preserve it as a museum exhibit in space. Or, it might be that it is so easy to return that it is worth returning it as a museum exhibit on Earth.
See also my Is The International Space Station The Most Expensive Single Item Ever Built? where I talk a bit about this towards the end.
Just answering this as a thought experiment. Whether we would want to do it is another matter.
Much could still happen before 2028 which I think has been suggested as a provisional end of mission (if it survives in good order until then, and nothing happens before then that means we have to bring it down). Is there anything that could make this possible in the near future?
For instance, if skylon is ready by then, it could launch 15 tons to orbit (equatorial LEO - less to an inclined orbit like the ISS). The idea is it could be used to bring supplies and new modules to space stations, but see no reason why it couldn't also return some of the parts of the ISS to Earth one module at a time if the desire was there and the money to pay for it. The website doesn't say what payload it could return to Earth.
- 4.6m diameter and 12.3m long.
- Original spec: 12 tonnes to a 300km equatorial orbit, 10.5 tonnes to a 460km equatorial spacestation or 9.5 tonnes to a 460km x 28.5 deg spacestation when operating from an equatorial site.
Updated SKYLON D1 configuration has a payload of 15 tonnes to a 300km equatorial orbit.
Reaction Engines Ltd - Space Access: SKYLON
There are several companies working on ways to get to space, but that seems perhaps one of the more likely to have a capability of returning fairly large payloads back to Earth gently.
SLS and the new Russian heavy lift will be able to launch huge amounts to LEO (a hundred tons in one go for the Russian one, and 70, then 130 metric tons for SLS), but not sure they could return ISS modules, because they are designed for lifting to orbit not return from orbit to Earth.
In principle, Russia could restart Buran, or the US could develop its own larger automated shuttle like Buran (its X37b shows it has capability of automated landing from space for a mini space shuttle) to return large modules to Earth.
But there's no sign of anyone doing that - this article has lots of images of Buran but in fact Russia is just restarting heavy lift like Energia, not Buran: Russia starts ambitious super-heavy space rocket project
You could also return them, in principle, using really huge parachutes, like the ballutes.
This is an actual photograph of a ballute from 2012 (cross between a balloon and a parachute)
A large trailing ballute has the advantage that it can de-orbit large payloads with minimal protection as the slow down happens higher up in the atmosphere and most of the effects are on the trailing ballute rather than the payload. Page on nasa.gov So if you wanted to return large payloads like the ISS to the Earth with the minimum of damage, that seems like the best technology, if you don't have a winged craft with a large payload capacity like Space Shuttle, Buran, or in future (maybe) Skylon.
But that again is like a major program just to try to save the ISS or at least return the modules as little damaged as possible.
If we had space mining by then, perhaps they would have developed large ballutes or similar methods to return payload to Earth.
If we have more extensive telerobotic assembly of spacecraft in orbit, and low cost lift of heavy mass to LEO, then, maybe the components of the ISS might be easier to reuse.
I think also that you could just keep boosting the ISS back to higher orbits, just as it has already several times, with nobody on board, if there was a strong wish to preserve it, until we have the capability to return it to Earth.
For instance, the plan is to attach a couple of Progress vehicles to assist it towards a controlled de-orbit. You could instead boost it to the highest orbit you can get it to with a couple of Progress launches - and commit yourself to sending a couple of Progress up to the ISS every few years (or whatever its equivalent is as technology improves), just to keep boosting it to keep it in a higher orbit, if you were willing to take on a recurring expense like that to maintain it as a "museum", either in space, or for future reuse of its materials in space, or to return to Earth as technology improves.
But that would be an on going expense, to no real gain. When you are talking about potentially spending billions of dollars, you probably need to argue a good case for it to have a chance.
Some of the modules can be saved and re-used for new space stations, or even, to build new spacecraft, e.g. to go to a Near Earth Asteroid, if you took just one module, say, and combined it with some form of propulsion sent up from Earth.
There is this 2010 idea, to detach one of the newest nodes of the ISS and send that on a deep space mission as a spaceship after refurbishment
The Russians have plans to re-use some of the modules for their future OSPEK space station.
So, some of it may be re-used.
But (unless some major technological advance happens quickly in the next decade), we will probably have to de-orbit most of it like all the previous space stations. Similarly to Skylab and MIR.
However, a space station can last several decades from when you start build - so, depending on whatever technology we have say 30 or 40 years from now, we may not need to de-orbit the next space station(s) after the ISS.
If the costs go right down, for future space stations, it might then make more sense to reuse it in space - or preserve it as a museum exhibit in space. Or, it might be that it is so easy to return that it is worth returning it as a museum exhibit on Earth.
See also my Is The International Space Station The Most Expensive Single Item Ever Built? where I talk a bit about this towards the end.
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.3k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0