Safety, deorbit planning and a possible gap in U.S. presence in LEO draw sharp questioning

Members pressed witnesses about specific safety concerns on the aging International Space Station and who would pay for deorbiting and mitigation actions.

Charlie Precourt of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel warned that the ISS is now operating in the "highest risk phase" of its lifecycle because of aging systems, structural wear and cumulative operational stress, and that the acquisition strategies used in the transition can materially influence safety outcomes.

"As NASA relies more heavily on commercial contracts, the structure of those contracts directly influences engineering rigor, oversight, transparency, and the accountability for risk," Precourt said. He pointed to the Boeing Starliner crew flight test as an example of how contract structure affected safety governance and urged that procurement incentives preserve technical rigor and clear government technical authority.

Congressional members also asked NASA about a small aft section of the Russian segment that had shown structural issues and leaks in the past. Joel Montalbano said engineers applied sealant, that there are no active leaks now, and that operations minimize crew time in that area and close hatches when pressing risk is present. He said pressurization of that area is performed only periodically and that mitigations include docking logistics to preserve that port for the ISS lifetime.

On deorbiting, Montalbano told the subcommittee deorbit costs would be shared among partner nations based on the mass of each partner's segment, and he described ongoing work with international partners to align responsibilities.

Multiple members of the panel asked what specific safety and oversight questions Congress should pose as NASA refines its options. Precourt urged Congress to focus on resourcing across three buckets—maintaining ISS capabilities, ensuring a deorbit vehicle is ready, and adequately resourcing the transition—because failing to fund any of those raises both safety and continuity risks.

The hearing produced no formal policy changes. Members said they will follow up with written questions and expect detailed cost and risk analyses before supporting major budget or procurement shifts.