| NASA evaluated a bunch of options before deciding to de-orbit ISS. You can read a summary here: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iss-deorbit-... (PDF) About boosting to a higher orbit, they wrote: "Space station operations require a full-time crew to
operate, and as such, an inability to keep crews onboard
would rule out operating at higher altitudes. The cargo
and crew vehicles that service the space station are designed and optimized for its current 257 mile (415km)
altitude and, while the ability of these vehicles varies,
NASA’s ability to maintain crew on the space station at
significantly higher altitudes would be severely impacted or even impossible with the current fleet. This includes the International crew and cargo fleet, as Russian assets providing propulsion and attitude control need to remain operational through the boost phase. "Ignoring the requirement of keeping crew onboard, NASA evaluated orbits above the present orbital regime that could extend just the orbital lifetime of the space station. [...] "However, ascending to these orbits would require the development of new propulsive and tanker vehicles that do not currently exist. While still currently in development, vehicles such as the SpaceX Starship are being designed to deliver significant amounts of cargo to these orbits; however, there are prohibitive engineering challenges with docking such a large vehicle to the space station and being able to use its thrusters while remaining within space station structural margins. Other vehicles would require both new
certifications to fly at higher altitudes and multiple flights to deliver propellant. "The other major consideration when going to a higher altitude is the orbital debris regime at each specified locale. The risk of a penetrating or catastrophic impact to space station (i.e., that could fragment the vehicle)
increases drastically above 257miles (415km). While higher altitudes provide a longer theoretical orbital life, the mean time between an impact event decreases from ~51 years at the current operational altitude to less than four years at a 497 mile (800km), ~700-year orbit. This means that the likelihood of an impact leaving station unable to maneuver or react to future threats, or even a significant impact resulting in complete fragmentation, is unacceptably high. NASA has estimated that such an impact could permanently degrade or even eliminate access to LEO for centuries." |
How are any lunar orbital trajectories relatively safe given the same risks to all crafts at such altitudes?
Is it mass or thrust, or failure to plan something better than inconsiderately decommissioning into the atmosphere and ocean.
If there are escape windows to the moon for other programs, how are there no escape windows to the moon for the ISS?
Given the standing risks of existing orbital debris and higher-altitude orbits' lack of shielding, are NEO impact collisions with e.g. hypersonic glide delivery vehicles advisable methods for NEO avoidance?
The NEO avoidance need is still to safely rendezvous and shove things headed for earth orbit into a different trajectory;
Is there a better plan than blowing a NEO up into fragments still headed for earth, like rendezvousing and shoving to the side?