I wonder if they could put it in a higher earth orbit, eliminating the need for periodic boosts. I imagine someone has run the numbers of cost of a large one-time boost minus PV of future maintenance boosts plus extra fuel required every time someone visits it.

The lunar orbit idea sounds far-fetched because the ISS is in LEO about 200 miles up and the moon is like 200,000 miles.

I am very unclear if having bases in orbit is helpful to exploration. Bases in LEO, lunar orbit, and the moon surface sound like stepping stones to Mars, but space is so harsh it may actually be cheaper not to establish bases. I wish the economics worked out such that you needed LEO labs for zero-gee mfg processes and from there it started to make sense to mine the moon and shoot the materials with a mass driver into an orbit where the labs could capture it.

Space colonization will eventually be economical, but unfortunately I doubt it will be in my lifetime.

Space technology, like any other, advances and improves. The ISS has the same problem that made the STS so difficult to maintain: multiple components with different stages of technology as a result of being constructed over a couple of decades. It would eat the budget of a private organization, even if organized as a not for profit.

Even government organizations recognize technical obsolescence. Russia didn't try to upgrade Salyut. Instead they replaced it with Mir. Closing the ISS doors in 2024 makes common sense.

The Bigelow inflatable modules make far more sense for a private firm. With common technology and ease of assembly a private space station could become operational quickly. Bigelow's engineers have developed plans to use the modules for space transportation and lunar housing, further extending the benefit of common technology.

The ISS can be thought of as a kind of real estate that is jointly owned by several different countries. As such if an agreement can be reached by its owners it could be put up for sale to the highest bidder. The ISS is specifically designed to operate in low Earth orbit. Its life support systems, its attitude stabilization and control systems, communications system and its solar arrays are designed to operate in that environment. The logistic support facilities such as docking ports are also optimized for near Earth operations. Also, the structure is not designed for more than the small forces necessary to maintain its orbit so moving it to a different location is not practical. That being said the ISS may be of interest to space industrial companies such as SpaceX and Planetary Resources if available at the right price. As a research facility it provides a unique environment that is worth careful consideration. It would be interesting to see if an international consortium could be put together to commercialize this resource.

I can't see getting it to the moon. It would take a lot of acceleration force on a construction that was not designed for it.

On the other hand, if there is a private company or organization that wants to maintain it in near Earth orbit that might make sense.

Unfortunately from the comments the number of people who hate private companies has grown to the point that they would rather crash it in the ocean than have someone make a profit off of it.

Why are we mucking about with the moon when as was pointed out to me some time ago by members of this forum, that the object of our efforts should be Mars. At that time, I was given the impression that a lunar base would be a waste of time and money.

I have indeed read the article and many of the comments. Yes, several people do not want a private company involved in space. In fact those same people do not like private companies at all. If they'd had their way two centuries ago, the railroads would have been public utilities from the get-go. Show them any private company that provides goods or services on a massive scale, and they'll show you Jay Gould. It's that simple.

Now let's see what it would take to make it happen. First, if the ISS is going to de-orbit, then it is a total loss. Absolutely any person or group that can stop it from burning (and likely crashing), has the absolute right of salvage.

Having said that, I can point to one serious obstacle to overcome: the Moon Treaty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Tr...

"The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,[3] better known as the Moon Treaty or Moon Agreement, is an international treaty that turns jurisdiction of all celestial bodies (including the orbits around such bodies) over to the international community. Thus, all activities must conform to international law, including the United Nations Charter.

In practice it is a failed treaty because it has not been ratified by any state that engages in self-launched manned space exploration or has plans to do so (e.g. the United States, the larger part of the member states of the European Space Agency, Russia (former Soviet Union), People's Republic of China, Japan, and India) since its creation in 1979, and thus has a negligible effect on actual spaceflight. As of November 2016, it has been ratified by 17 states."

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Tr...

The United States is not one of the parties. So Donald Trump needs to guarantee the protection of Richard Branson, Elon Musk, or whoever is willing to go up there, attach a bunch of boosters to the station, and perform Trans-Lunar Injection to get it to the Moon. (Or else do what I would recommend: boost it to GEO. Its first mission: to serve as the orbiting construction shack for the Space Elevator.) That could mean a big appropriation for the Space Command, United States Air Force. Perhaps then the Space Command would spin off and become the United States Space Force.

The obvious alternative is for a totally private concern to rocket up there, take it over, attach boosters to it, boost it to GEO, and then assert independence. Call it Mulligan's Station, or Galt's Station, or Atlantis.

If it's moved up to 22,000 miles it will be stationary at that spot.

we have enough problems right here on earth. I agree that exploring space has advanced technology, but private ownership would advance it further.

I don't know about making it to the moon, but it does seem a waste to see it simply decay and burn up.

"This generation is [...]realistic about the challenges and risks that lay ahead."
This is present tense, so they mean the risks that lie ahead.