On June 5, 2026, NASA urgently requested the five astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS) to evacuate into a docked spacecraft and be ready to evacuate the space station at any time. The reason is a long-standing but recently worsened air leakage problem in the Russian section of the space station. About an hour and a half later, the alarm was lifted and the astronauts returned to their normal duties. However, this incident once again reminded the outside world that this "most expensive scientific experiment" of mankind, which symbolizes international cooperation, is aging.
The International Space Station was born in the context of the easing of relations between the United States and Russia after the end of the Cold War. In the early 1990s, Washington and Moscow decided to merge their originally independent space station projects to create this multinational on-orbit platform. The air leak in question today is located in the PrK transfer channel in the "Zvezda" module used by the Russian side of the space station. This is an old structure leading to the docking interface of the spacecraft. Small cracks in the channel structure have been repeatedly temporarily repaired with sealants, but no complete, permanent engineering solution currently exists.
The technical issue also sparked disagreements between NASA and Russian state space group Roscosmos over the level of risk. Roscosmos considered the leak slow and posed no real danger, while NASA viewed it as an elevated safety risk and feared more serious consequences from compromised structural integrity. The United States pointed out that Bob Cabanna, chairman of the Space Station Advisory Committee, disclosed as early as 2024 that NASA was worried that the PrK channel might suffer a "catastrophic failure," while the Russian team considered this risk "unrealistic."
In early June this year, new cracks were discovered and the rate of air leakage increased, prompting Russia to propose specific repair plans. According to technology media Ars Technica, Roscosmos initially planned to use drills to work on the capsule to repair cracks. This idea was opposed by NASA and was immediately shelved by Russia. Later, a second plan was proposed: Russian astronauts would use a saw to cut off a load-bearing bracket inside the channel. When NASA learned of the plan, it immediately ordered five astronauts from the space station to enter the SpaceX "Manned Dragon" spacecraft, preparing to quickly escape from the space station if an accident occurred during the maintenance process. The United States only allowed astronauts to return to the capsule after Roscosmos canceled the program again. After the incident, Russia informed NASA that it would close the PrK transfer channel and isolate it from other parts of the space station in order to "put an end to it."
However, in addition to technical risks, the bigger problem is the future direction of the International Space Station itself. According to the original vision, the ISS will not exist indefinitely, but will be taken over by a group of commercially operated private space stations to become a new low-Earth orbit platform. At that time, NASA will send astronauts to these private space stations, which will also be open to paying space tourists. Currently, at the forefront of the race for the “next stop” in low-Earth orbit is Vast’s planned Haven-1 space station, which has about one-eighth the habitable space of the ISS, is only suitable for a stay of up to a month, and is highly dependent on docked SpaceX spacecraft to provide air and power. Haven-1 was viewed as a technology validation platform rather than a true replacement, and despite an early target of a 2026 launch, it is now widely considered unlikely to take off until 2027.
The commercial space station that is truly expected to partially take over the functions of the ISS is still further along the timeline. Vast’s planned modular Haven-2 is scheduled to launch its first module in 2028, with the goal of completing overall construction in 2032, which coincides with the current scheduled retirement year of the International Space Station, leaving little buffer for the project’s common delays. Two other companies - Axiom and Starlab Space - are also planning larger in-orbit space stations, but they are still in the development stage, with Axiom having exposed problems such as financial pressure.
From a business perspective, capital and companies are not yet fully ready to take over the role of the International Space Station. The article pointed out that the statement that "the market will dominate ISS alternatives" is seriously overestimated. The reality is that national space agencies will become the main tenants and sources of funding, and the United States is actually "paying" for this commercial orbit service industry. At a time when the construction of private space stations is not progressing satisfactorily, U.S. lawmakers have chosen to extend the service life of the International Space Station. NASA originally planned to operate the ISS until 2030. The latest authorization bill to be approved plans to postpone the decommissioning time to 2032 and link the decommissioning of the space station to the readiness of commercial alternatives. It also clearly warns against a situation in which "only China maintains a manned presence in low-Earth orbit."
The decommissioning process of the International Space Station also presents complex legal and technical challenges. According to NASA's plan, a modified version of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft will be used to propel the space station weighing about 420 tons into the Earth's atmosphere in a controlled manner, at an estimated cost of about $840 million. The re-entry site is planned to be Point Nemo in the South Pacific, which is considered the most remote sea area on Earth and can minimize the risk of debris falling into densely populated areas. Even so, the space station will be the largest orbital object to have controlled reentry through the atmosphere to date, and there may still be debris as big as a small family car that may survive, raising potential liability issues for damage.
According to the United Nations Convention on Liability of Space Objects, adopted in 1972, the country that launches a space object is responsible for the damage caused by it. However, the International Space Station is composed of launch modules from multiple countries, mainly the United States and Russia, as well as Japan, Canada, and member states participating in the European Space Agency. In the case of joint launches by two or more countries, they will bear "joint and several liability", that is, either party may be required to bear full compensation. If the space station debris accidentally falls in a place where it should not fall during the re-entry process and causes damage, the responsibility for the ground target is "absolute liability" and there is no need to prove fault; if other in-orbit satellites are damaged during the re-entry process, it is necessary to prove the existence of fault. In such a complex deorbit operation scenario, proving responsibility will be extremely challenging.
The author pointed out that this air leak incident once again reminds people that both the International Space Station and future commercial space stations require continuous maintenance and technical support, and companies cannot simply adopt a "sell and be done" attitude. In the absence of large and stable paying customers other than national space agencies, investors are naturally more cautious about investing in expensive on-orbit platform construction. Extending the life of the International Space Station temporarily provides a "patch" for human on-orbit scientific activities, but it does not fundamentally solve a problem - who will pay for the next generation of space stations.