Who is banned from the ISS?

The reality of who can visit or work aboard the International Space Station (ISS) is less about physical capability and more about international politics and specific national legislation. While many nations participate in the ISS program, there is one significant, technologically advanced space power that is explicitly barred from sending its citizens to the station: China. This isn't a matter of them failing to meet technical standards; rather, it stems from decades of security concerns and specific legal actions taken by the United States government.

# Partnership Roster

To understand who is banned, it helps to first define who is allowed. The ISS is not an open-door facility; it is the result of a formal, decades-long partnership between five primary space agencies: NASA (United States), Roscosmos (Russia), JAXA (Japan), ESA (European Space Agency), and CSA (Canada). Astronauts from these partner nations regularly crew the station. Beyond these core partners, other countries have sent individuals to the ISS, usually through agreements brokered by a partner agency, such as ESA or JAXA, which allows non-partner astronauts to fly under an umbrella agreement. For instance, astronauts from the European partner nations, or those from countries with strong bilateral agreements with the US or Russia, have flown. However, the station’s governance and operation are fundamentally tied to the international treaties signed by the original partners.

# Legislative Barrier

The exclusion of Chinese astronauts, or taikonauts, has been in place since at least 2011. This legislative prohibition prevents Chinese astronauts from officially visiting the ISS. The core of this restriction lies within US domestic law, specifically legislation passed by the US Congress that severely limits NASA’s ability to cooperate bilaterally with the Chinese government and its space programs.

The driving force behind this long-standing freeze in cooperation is rooted in deep-seated security and human rights concerns raised by US lawmakers. One major piece of legislation, often cited in discussions about this topic, restricts NASA's ability to use federal funds to engage in bilateral activities with China or any Chinese-owned entity unless specific conditions are met and waivers are granted, which effectively bars formal partnership on projects like the ISS. Furthermore, reports indicate that NASA has been explicitly directed to block Chinese nationals from accessing agency facilities, underscoring the security-focused nature of the ban on cooperation.

The nature of this ban is distinct from other countries simply not being invited. It is an active prohibition imposed by one of the station’s largest stakeholders, preventing Chinese citizens from flying on a US segment or under a US partnership agreement. Even if China were to develop a spacecraft capable of docking, the US legal framework regarding NASA collaboration remains the significant hurdle.

What is the ESA contribution to the ISS?

# Comparing Exclusion Types

It is useful to distinguish between a country being uninvited and a country being banned. For the ISS, this difference is critical:

The political landscape surrounding the ISS is inherently complex, especially given the historical and current reliance on Russia for crew transport following the retirement of the Space Shuttle program. The US has maintained collaboration with Russia on the ISS even amid severe geopolitical tensions, yet simultaneously maintains this hard line against China. This parallel approach—cooperating with one geopolitical rival while legally prohibiting engagement with another—is a direct reflection of the specific legislative mandates targeting China, which have remained largely unchanged despite shifts in administration or international context.

# Divergent Paths

The explicit exclusion from the ISS environment has significantly shaped China’s approach to human spaceflight. Rather than waiting for an invitation or seeking to overcome US legislative hurdles, China has pursued an independent and parallel path, leading to the development and operation of its own crewed space station, Tiangong.

This independent development is a direct consequence of being barred from participating in the ISS program. By building Tiangong, China has established a permanent, long-term platform in low Earth orbit, showcasing indigenous technological capability without relying on the agreements or political favor of the ISS partners. The existence of Tiangong provides a direct, functional alternative for Chinese taikonauts and opens the door for collaboration with other nations not part of the original ISS structure. This dual-orbit reality—the aging ISS alongside the newer Tiangong—is a tangible outcome of the political divisions present in space exploration today.

Thinking about the long-term implications, this legislative directive effectively created a two-tiered system of space infrastructure. While the ISS represents a model of post-Cold War multilateral cooperation (even if it includes politically fraught relationships), the Chinese station represents a model of sovereign, self-sufficient capability built in response to perceived exclusion. From an outsider’s perspective observing international space policy, one might suggest that this clear legislative prohibition ensures that the ISS remains politically and legally "clean" from any direct involvement by Chinese state agencies, even if it means missing out on the scientific exchange that broader collaboration might bring. The technical expertise China has developed in building Tiangong might eventually offer unique scientific data that the ISS partners, constrained by their own institutional limitations, cannot easily access otherwise.

Is the ISS technically not in space?

# The Scope of the Ban

While the focus is nearly always on the astronauts themselves, it is worth noting the breadth of the restrictions on US agencies regarding China. The ban is not just about boarding the ISS; it extends to many forms of collaboration. For example, NASA staff have been prohibited from working with Chinese nationals on various agency projects due to these legislative concerns. This suggests that the ban affects research sharing, ground operations support, and any other area where official contact might occur, extending far beyond the orbital mechanics of crew rotation.

This legislative oversight appears comprehensive enough to cover any scenario where a Chinese national might gain sensitive information through interaction with US space personnel or facilities, leading to a near-total official freeze between the two nations’ space agencies in many arenas. This contrasts sharply with the open interaction that occurred between the US and Russian space programs during the early and middle phases of the ISS project, highlighting the unique political calculus applied specifically to the People’s Republic of China.

# Future Considerations

As the ISS approaches its planned retirement, likely in the late 2020s or early 2030s, the question of who will occupy the next major orbital outpost will become more pertinent. China’s Tiangong station is already operational and is scheduled to be open for international visitors and experiments in the coming years. Should the US and its partners successfully transition to commercial space stations, the legal framework currently restricting NASA might need re-evaluation or might simply become less relevant if the focus shifts away from government-owned facilities toward private contractors who are not subject to the same strict legislative language.

However, the underlying political reasons that led to the initial ban—concerns over technology transfer and transparency—are not likely to disappear quickly. Therefore, even if the physical ISS is decommissioned, the legal and political chasm separating the US-led space efforts from China’s efforts seems set to continue influencing international space policy for the foreseeable future. The exclusion of Chinese taikonauts from the ISS is thus more than just a temporary travel restriction; it represents a fundamental divergence in the political architecture of human space exploration in the 21st century.