Instead of using SpaceX rocket to crash the ISS back to earth, why not move it to the moon and soft land it.

[Zorro]

Why not move the ISS to the moon instead of crashing it to the earth. ISS can be used for an emergency center for astronauts as well as a remote location for moon studies
Do the same with hubble telescope when it is time to retire it. With Hubble soft landed on the moon, it can easily function for 100s of years.

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

Because lunar landings are difficult and expensive. Roscosmos' "Luna-25", and Astrobotic's "Peregrine Mission One", failed. And JAXA's SLIM had significant complications. Those were conducted by spacecraft designed from the beginning to land on the moon.

The cost on its own would dissuade NASA, let alone the fact that it'd probably fail.

PS. Welcome to the space.com forums, @Zorro.

 

[ZZTOP]

Why not move the ISS to the moon instead of crashing it to the earth. ISS can be used for an emergency center for astronauts as well as a remote location for moon studies
Do the same with hubble telescope when it is time to retire it. With Hubble soft landed on the moon, it can easily function for 100s of years.

1. The ISS has no suspension or ability to land or support itself
2. The ISS is a series of modules that were not designed to sustain fast travel
3. Why would you want something totally used and failing on the moon?

 

[Curious Citizen]

1. The ISS has no suspension or ability to land or support itself
2. The ISS is a series of modules that were not designed to sustain fast travel
3. Why would you want something totally used and failing on the moon?

The ISS is not rated for deep space.

 

[jcmontanez]

Why not move the ISS to the moon instead of crashing it to the earth. ISS can be used for an emergency center for astronauts as well as a remote location for moon studies
Do the same with hubble telescope when it is time to retire it. With Hubble soft landed on the moon, it can easily function for 100s of years.

Why soft land it? Just transfer the ISS into a lunar orbit via a low-consumption gravitational assist. It could take a long time, though. Probably years.

 

[Cisventure Astronot]

Roscosmos claims that 80% of their systems on the ISS are past their expiry date. And Leaks have become more common. The ISS is simply too old to continue operating. Moving it would strain it more, and make it harder to service.

Not to mention global politics.

 

[jcmontanez]

Why soft land it? Just transfer the ISS into a lunar orbit via a low-consumption gravitational assist. It could take a long time, though. Probably years even if it survived the trip.

 

[jlf180]

Why not move the ISS to the moon instead of crashing it to the earth. ISS can be used for an emergency center for astronauts as well as a remote location for moon studies
Do the same with hubble telescope when it is time to retire it. With Hubble soft landed on the moon, it can easily function for 100s of years.

because it's basicly not possible. The ISS structure can't handle the stress of TLI. The fuel and thrust needed exceeds any method available. The various ECLSS is all approaching EOL. about half of the solar panels are no longer used and are simply structures holding up the new panels.