Orbital mechanics
Delta-v, docking geometry, reboost profile, decay timeline, propellant, controllability and safe failure modes.
Review gates
The useful question is not "wouldn't it be amazing?"
The useful question is: what evidence would make ISS preservation technically, legally, financially and diplomatically credible?
Gates
Eight places the idea has to survive contact with reality.
Station structure
Fatigue, pressure integrity, thermal cycling, docking loads, module isolation and what can safely remain operational.
Crew and public safety
No alternative matters if it increases risk to crew, ground populations, other spacecraft or future LEO operations.
International consent
The station is a partner asset. Any path needs partner-agency consent, treaty compliance and diplomatic legitimacy.
Space law and liability
Ownership, responsibility, registration, liability, salvage, debris, insurance and end-state governance have to be clear.
Procurement and cost
The comparison is not a slogan. It needs lifecycle cost, schedule, launch procurement, operations and de-risking estimates.
Heritage and science value
A preservation case must show why the ISS remains valuable as science infrastructure, orbital museum, training platform or staging node.
Peaceful governance
AUKUS participation would need a visibly peaceful, civilian-science and partner-led frame, not a militarised orbital claim.
Outputs
The review should produce a clean answer.
Green path
A credible preservation concept exists and deserves a formal partner-agency, legal and engineering study.
Amber path
Some useful lessons or partial preservation options exist, but full ISS preservation is not yet credible.
Red path
The answer is no, and the public record explains why the controlled-deorbit baseline remains the responsible choice.