Category The International Space Station

Following the departure of Endeavour, Korzun, Whitson, and Treschev settled down to the start of their 4.5-month stay aboard ISS. On June 18, they observed and photographed wildfires in Arizona and Colorado. Whitson activated the StelSys Liver Cell Research experiment in the Biotechnology Specimen Temperature Controller (BSTC) on June 21. The experiment compared liver cell function in microgravity with that of similar cells grown on Earth. Processed samples were stored in the Arctic-1 freezer for return to Earth on STS-112. When the experiments were complete the BSTC was powered off.

Having installed a new hard drive in the Zeolite Crystal Growth experiment during their second week on orbit, Huntsville powered on the EXPRESS Rack 2 containing the experiment. The first sample runs were commenced on June 27. All three astronauts completed their first Crew Interactions Questionnaire on June 25, while Korzun and Treschev also completed a running experiment on the station treadmill that required them to take close-up high-definition video of their facial features while running.

The crew also filled the docked Progress with rubbish, in preparation for its departure. The undocking of Progress M1-8, from Zvezda’s wake, took place at 04: 23, June 25, and the spacecraft re-entered the atmosphere and burned up as planned.

For several months in advance of its final report on the loss of STS-107 the chairman of the Investigation Board had been briefing NASA and the media on what had been found. Speaking about what the final report might contain NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe had warned, “It’s going to be ugly… This is not going to be anything that anybody’s going to be particularly happy with.’’

Likewise, Bill Gerstenmaier, Shuttle program manager said:

“We are well aware of what is coming out of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and what is coming from the Shuttle Return to Flight discussions… We are looking at all of the systems on board the station and evaluating whether we need to do something directly or whether we made decisions in the past… we ought to go back and look at.”

NASA had been accused of excessive use of waivers during the preparation of the STS-107 flight. At the time of launch some 5,800 had been recorded during Columbia’s preparation. The Administration was accused of “bureaucratic fumbling and administrative missed signals’’.

The Final Report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) was published in August 2003. It established that the left bipod ramp had fallen off of the External Tank during launch and had struck the leading edge of Columbia’s left wing in the region of Reinforced Carbon-Carbon Panels 6 through 9, on the internal bend where the wing root moves away from the fuselage. The suitcase-size block of foam caused a large hole in the RCC panels in a region that could not be seen through the flight deck windows. Columbia performed near-flawlessly throughout its mission until re-entry, when super-heated plasma entered the hole in the leading edge of the left wing and caused the destruction of the spacecraft. NASA management was severely criticised. Managers had refused requests from their engineers to have the orbiter photographed by a military reconnaissance satellite when the foam impact was identified on film of the launch. They had also adopted the attitude that if Columbia was fatally damaged then nothing could be done to save the crew.

The report made 15 recommendations for Return to Flight:

1. Initiate an aggressive programme to eliminate all External Tank Thermal Protection System debris shedding at the source with particular emphasis on the region where the bipod struts attach to the external tank.

2. Initiate a programme designed to increase the orbiter’s ability to sustain minor debris damage by measures such as improved impact-resistant Reinforced Carbon-Carbon and acreage titles.

3. Develop and implement a comprehensive inspection plan to determine the structural integrity of all Reinforced Carbon-Carbon system components.

4. For missions to the International Space Station, develop a practicable capability to inspect and effect emergency repairs to the widest possible range of damage to the Thermal Protection System, including both tile and Reinforced Carbon – Carbon, taking advantage of the additional capabilities available when near to or docked at the International Space Station… Accomplish an on-orbit Thermal Protection System inspection using appropriate assets and capabilities, early in all missions… The ultimate objective should be a fully autonomous capability for all missions to address the possibility that an International Space Station mission fails to achieve the correct orbit, fails to dock successfully, or is damaged during or after undocking.

5. Upgrade the imaging system capable of providing a minimum of three useful views of the Space Shuttle from lift-off to at least Solid Rocket Booster separa­tion… The operational criteria of these assets should be included in the Launch Commit Criteria for future launches.

6. Provide a capability to obtain and down-link high-resolution images of the External Tank after its separation.

7. Provide a capability to obtain and down-link high-resolution images of the underside of the Orbiter wing leading edge and forward section of both wings’ Thermal Protection System.

8. Modify the Memorandum of Agreement with the National Imagery and Mapping Agency to make the imaging of each Shuttle flight while on orbit a standard requirement.

9. Test and qualify the flight hardware bolt catchers.

10. Require that at least two employees attend all final closeouts and intertank area hand-spraying procedures.

11. Kennedy Space Centre Quality Assurance and United Space Alliance must return to the straightforward, industry-standard definition of “Foreign Object Debris’’ and eliminate any alternate or statistically deceptive definitions like “process debris’’.

12. Adopt and maintain a Shuttle flight schedule that is consistent with available resources. Although schedule deadlines are an important management tool, those deadlines must be regularly evaluated to ensure that any additional risk incurred to meet the schedule is recognised, understood, and acceptable.

13. Implement an expanded training programme in which the Mission Management Team faces potential crew and vehicle safety contingencies beyond launch and ascent. These contingencies should involve potential loss of Shuttle or crew, contain numerous uncertainties and unknowns, and require the Mission Management Team to assemble and interact support organisations across NASA/Contractor lines and in various locations.

14. Prepare a detailed plan for defining, establishing, transitioning, and implement­ing an independent Technical Engineering Authority, independent safety programme, and a reorganised Space Shuttle Integration Office.

15. Develop an interim programme of close-out photographs for all critical sub­systems that differ from engineering drawings. Digitise the close-out photograph system so that images are immediately available for on-orbit troubleshooting.

Chapter 9 of the Report addressed the future of American human access to space.

The report noted:

“The Board observes that none of the competing long-term visions for space have found support from the nation’s leadership, or indeed among the general public. The U. S. civilian space effort has moved forward for more than 30 years without a guiding vision, and none seems imminent. In the past, this absence of a strategic vision in itself has reflected a policy decision, since there have been many opportunities for the national leaders to agree on ambitious goals for space, and none have done so.’’

The CAIB did note that almost everyone seemed to agree that “The United States needs improved access for humans to low-Earth orbit as a foundation for whatever directions the nation’s space programme takes in the future.”

Board members called for a national debate to define America’s future in space. The report highlighted the short-sightedness of developing the Shuttle in isola­tion. Lack of funding and an often-hostile Congress meant that for the next 20 years after the decision to build the Shuttle, NASA made little or no attempt to develop parallel “access to space’’ technologies until the X-33 and X-34 programmes of 1994. As a result, those programmes were begun with a limited technology base, and X-33 proved beyond the technological capabilities of Lockheed-Martin at that time. The Report then recognised NASA’s attempts to broaden their technology base with the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) in 2000, and promptly narrowed that vision once more with the decision, in 2002, to redirect SLI to commence the Integrated Space Transportation Plan (ISTP) with its proposed Orbital Space Plane (OSP).

The Board made it clear that they did not study NASA’s plans for the ISTP, or the OSP in depth. Even so, they concluded:

“Because of the risks inherent in the original design of the Space Shuttle, because that design was based in many aspects on now-obsolete technologies, and because the Shuttle is now an ageing system but still developmental in character, it is in the nation’s interest to replace the Shuttle as soon as possible as the primary means for transporting humans to and from Earth orbit.’’

CAIB members recognised that in the mid-term that replacement would, more than likely, be the OSP and demanded:

“The design of the system should give overriding priority to crew safety, rather than trade safety against other performance criteria, such as low-cost, re-usability, or against advanced space operation capabilities other than crew transfer. This conclusion implies that whatever design NASA chooses should become the primary means for taking people to and from the International Space Station, not just a complement to the Space Shuttle.’’

This represented a major change in direction for the OSP, which NASA had originally intended to begin flying while the Shuttle continued to operate.

The CAIB members stated that there was considerable urgency in developing the OSP, which would require commitment and financial support from Congress and the American people. They stated that America must be prepared to support the OSP as a long-term commitment, and not shy away from the long-term cost, as ISS was likely to be the primary destination for Americans in space for the next decade, or longer.

The report called the failure to develop a Shuttle replacement vehicle “a failure of national leadership” caused by continuing to expect major technological advances in that vehicle’’. The CAIB recommended that everyone concerned should agree that the overriding design principal of the OSP should be “to move humans safely and reliably in to and out of Earth orbit. To demand more would be to fall into the same trap as previous unsuccessful efforts.” The paragraph concluded, “Continued US leadership in space is an important national objective. That leadership depends on a willingness to pay the costs of achieving it.”

On August 26, Sean O’Keefe made a speech that was broadcast to all NASA field centres. In that speech he told NASA’s employees:

“We must go forward and follow this blueprint in an effort to make this a much stronger organization. All of us at NASA are part of the solution… ultimately… to return to the exploration objectives that they dedicated their lives to.’’

From the moment that STS-107, Columbia, was lost, on February 1, 2003, NASA had been planning towards the Shuttle’s Return to Flight. NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe had immediately established the CAIB to identify the cause of Columbia’s loss and identify the actions NASA would be required to take before Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour could return to space. On July 28, 2003, O’Keefe also established the Return to Flight Task Group (RTFTG), to oversee NASA’s preparations for the Shuttle’s Return to Flight and the correct implementation of the CAIB’s recommendations. The CAIB published its report five weeks later, on August 26, 2003. It listed the 15 recommendations for the Shuttle’s safe return to flight contained earlier in this manuscript (see pp. 136-137).

Meanwhile, the loss of the second Space Shuttle orbiter with a full crew of seven astronauts had caused a re-think of America’s human spaceflight policy. On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration. It called for the Shuttle’s Return to Flight and the completion of ISS to “Core Complete’’, with all American and International Partners’ modules in place. Additional Russian modules would be added as and when the Russian economy allowed. “Core Complete’’ was to be achieved in 2010, at which time the Shuttle fleet would be retired. NASA would develop by 2014 a new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), designed to act as a CTV and CRV for the station before returning humans to the Moon by 2020. In order to complete ISS by 2010, NASA would have to return the Shuttle to flight in 2005 and fly five successful missions per year for the next five years thereafter. It was a bold, if not impossible launch schedule. Despite all of their good words about the new priority to be given to crew safety to the media, NASA would have no choice but to be budget and schedule-driven.

Throughout 2004, NASA set a succession of target dates for the Return to Flight launch of STS-114, but they passed, one after the other, with no launch. Again and again the RTFTG reported to NASA Headquarters that the Administration was not sufficiently advanced on the CAIB’s 15 recommendations to attempt the launch. In January 2005, the RTFTG reported that NASA had still failed to meet 8 of the 15 recommendations. The following month Sean O’Keefe resigned as NASA Administrator. His position was filled by Michael Griffin, a former senior NASA engineer, on April 14, 2005.

By that time the STS-114 launch was set for May 15, and the vehicle was sitting on LC-39, Pad-B. Griffin delayed the launch and STS-114 was returned to the VAB, to have its ET and SRBs exchanged with those that had been delivered for the next

flight by Atlantis. The new ET contained anti-ice formation heaters that were part of the attempt by Lockheed-Martin to prevent foam and ice shedding from the ET during launch. STS-114 had originally been stacked to an ET that did not have these heaters.

The RTFTG final report Executive Summary was published on June 28; it stated that NASA had still failed to meet three of the CAIB’s recommendations for a safe return to flight. They had:

1. Failed to prove they had significantly reduced, or stopped foam and ice shedding from the ET during launch. NASA Administrator Michael Griffin had stated that the Administration might have to accept that it was impossible to stop all foam shedding from the External Tank.

2. Failed to harden the orbiter against strikes by foam and ice shed from the ET.

3. Failed to demonstrate heatshield tile repair methods and prove that repaired tiles could survive re-entry heating. (Ironically, STS-114 was due to demonstrate tile repair methods on deliberately damaged tiles carried into orbit for that specific purpose in the payload bay.)

STS-114 was moved back to the launchpad and prepared for launch on July 13. On that date the countdown was stopped at T — 2 hours when one of four fuel sensors malfunctioned. The launch was cancelled and an investigation began. Rather than replace the sensor, NASA informed the media that they fully understood the problem and would continue with the new launch if the exact problem was repeated during that attempt. Launch was set for July 26.

On July 18, Krikalev and Phillips tested the motion control system on Soyuz TMA-6. With Discovery’s launch delayed, NASA managers brought the transfer of Soyuz TMA-6 from Pirs to Zarya forward. The transfer was required so Pirs could be used as an airlock for an EVA by the Expedition-11 crew, originally planned for August. The transfer took place on July 19, with undocking from Pirs occurring at 06: 38. Krikalev backed the Soyuz away 30 m, flew laterally along the length of the station, and, after 14 minutes of station keeping, docking to Zarya took place at 07: 08. Fifty-two minutes later the crew entered ISS and began reconfiguring it for normal use. July 23, 2005, was the Expedition-11 crew’s 100th day in space. Having completed the packing of items for return to Earth on STS-114, they began to pack items for return to Earth on STS-121, due to fly in September 2005.

In advance of his present launch, Krikalev had said:

“We have a pretty well-developed process and pretty good calculations of how much water the human body consumes, how much food you need to continue operation on board the Station, and of course this kind of supply is first priority. That’s why, when Shuttle was not able to fly, all this kind of load was taken by Progress. But as a result we were not able to deliver as much equipment for scientific experiments. So increasing the variety ofmeans to deliver cargo on orbit increases not only amount of food (we don’t need food more than we can eat—we can increase our margins in case of emergency again, but we don’t need much more food than was delivered before), but we would be able to deliver more equipment for experiments. Returning [the] Shuttle back to flight would mean more scientific capabilities because we would be able to have three crewmembers after that. We would be able to conduct more experiments.”

Phillips was also looking forward to the Shuttle fleet returning to flight:

‘‘[S]ince the Columbia accident, the Russian Space Agency has been literally carrying the load and bringing us all the supplies we need, mostly on the Progress vehicle, [and] smaller amounts on the Soyuz vehicles. One impact of that is that we’ve only had a crew of two instead of a crew of three, which, of course, reduces the amount of science we can do. Another impact is that we’ve frankly been operating on pretty thin margins of certain consumables—food, water and oxygen. Once the Space Shuttles start flying, they carry a huge amount of mass to orbit, so they can bring our reserves of food, oxygen, and water back up to where they should be. The Shuttle makes water with its electrical power genera­tion system [fuel cells]. We should get well with water, food and oxygen, as well as spare parts that we haven’t been able to bring back.

Another thing that people don’t often think of is the Shuttle also carries a tremendous amount of down-mass. We’ve been accumulating a lot of equipment, some of which is equipment that needs to be returned to Earth and some of which is just plain trash, and there are limited amounts we can get rid of on the Progress vehicles. We should be able to load some of that stuff on the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module that’ll be in the payload bay of the Shuttle, and help clean out the Station a little bit.’’

The STS-114 Return to Flight crew was made up of two pre-STS-107 crews. Lawrence, Thomas, and Camarda were assigned to the original STS-114 crew, which should have carried the original three-person Expedition-7 crew to ISS and returned the Expedition-6 crew to Earth. Collins, Kelly, Robinson, and Noguchi were the original STS-116 crew, which should have carried the original three-person Expedition-8 crew up to ISS and returned the Expedition-7 crew to Earth. The new STS-114 would retain much of the original flight’s logistics mission, carrying

an MPLM to the station and a replacement CMG. For the first time the MPLM would be lifted out of the payload bay and returned to it using the SSRMS.

After a 2.5-year delay, STS-114 was finally launched at 10:39, July 26, 2005, and entered orbit a few minutes later. Throughout the launch over 100 high-resolution cameras filmed the ascent from all angles, in order to identify any debris that might shed from the vehicle. Noguchi used a hand-held video camera to film the ET as it was jettisoned. Before beginning their sleep period at 17: 00, the crew un-berthed the RMS and used its cameras to view the clearances between Discovery’s Ku-band antenna and the new Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS) moored along the starboard sill of the payload bay.

Meanwhile, processing of the launch imagery showed a small piece of heatshield tile departing from close to Discovery’s nosewheel doors. A tile in that area had been damaged and repaired during vehicle preparation, and this repair may have been shaken loose during launch. At SRB separation, a large piece of debris was seen departing from the ET and moving away without striking the orbiter. Both events were videoed by new cameras mounted on the ET. Subsequent review of the images would show that the debris seen departing from the ET was the foam protuberance air load ramp: in short, it had the potential to fatally damage Discovery, just as the foam bipod ramp had doomed Columbia during the launch of STS-107. Only the airflow over the vehicle at SRB separation had prevented the large block of foam striking Discovery. Despite all of the work re-designing the area surrounding the bipod after STS-107, cameras revealed that a strip of insulation some 15 cm to 17 cm long had peeled away from the bipod itself. Also, two small dents were observed where the bipod ramp had been fitted up until STS-107. The dents should have been filled prior to the ET’s delivery to KSC, but apparently had not been, nor was the fact picked up during post-delivery inspections in the VAB, or during vehicle stacking and preparation for launch. On the subject of foam loss, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said:

“Our guys are going to take a professional look at every frame of footage we have from every camera we have. These are test flights. The primary object under flight test is the external tank and all of the design changes we have made so we would not have a repeat of Columbia.”

Discovery’s crew were told of the two major debris-shedding events and that flight controllers would continue to review the various images at their disposal. Those images would ultimately reveal some 25 impacts on the orbiter during launch. Six areas would receive further inspection, including two regions where the felt-like material that was used to fill the gaps between the Shuttle’s tiles was seen to be protruding. It was feared that re-entering with the filler strips protruding might cause boundary layer turbulence and higher localised heating levels during re-entry if they were not removed.

Despite everything, shortly after achieving orbit, Collins paid respect to the seven astronauts lost on STS-107 saying, “We miss them, and we are continuing their mission. God bless them tonight, and God bless their families.’’ The crew began their 8-hour eat-sleep period just after 16: 00.

STS-114’s first full day in space began at 00:39. The crew downloaded their images of the ET separation. Kelly and Thomas activated the RMS, using it to pick up the OBSS, which was then employed to carry out a thorough laser-video scan of Discovery’s exterior, which was downloaded to Houston in its turn. Following the survey, the OBSS was re-berthed and the RMS cameras were used to video the Thermal Protection System on the crew compartment. With the external surveys completed the crew began preparations for docking with ISS by extending the docking ring and inspecting equipment that they would use during the closing manoeuvres. They also completed tests on the two EMUs that would be used during the mission’s three EVAs.

Flight Day 3 began at 23: 39, July 27. During the final rendezvous with ISS Collins slowed Discovery’s approach and performed a nose-over-tail pitch man­oeuvre (official name: r-bar pitch manoeuvre) at a distance of 200 metres below the station. This allowed the Expedition-11 crew to obtain high-resolution digital photographs of Discovery’s underside. Docking occurred at 07: 18, July 28, by which time NASA had already announced that the remainder of the Shuttle fleet had been grounded indefinitely, as a result of the debris shed from STS-114’s ET during launch. Shuttle programme manager William Parsons announced, “Until we’re ready, we won’t go fly again. I don’t know when that might be.’’ He continued, “You have to

admit when you’re wrong. We were wrong… We need to do some work… foam should not have come off. It came off. We’ve got to go do something about that.’’

Following the usual greeting and safety brief, the two crews got to work carrying out additional inspections of Discovery. With the station structure obstructing direct use of the RMS, Kelly, Lawrence, and Phillips used the SSRMS to lift the OBSS from its storage location and hand it to Discovery’s RMS, which was operated by Thomas. The OBSS was then used to continue observations of the orbiter. Robinson and Noguchi spent time preparing for their three EVAs. After a joint meal both crews began their sleep period at 03: 40, July 29. While they were asleep mission control cycled Unity’s nadir CBM in anticipation of the following day’s activities.

The Shuttle crew were woken up at 23: 39, with the Expedition crew following at 00: 09, July 30. Following breakfast, Lawrence and Kelly used the SSRMS to grapple the MPLM Raffaello, lift it out of Discovery’s payload bay, at 02: 00, and dock it to Unity’s nadir. Electrical power from the station was applied to the MPLM at 08:50, and the hatches were opened to allow unloading to commence just after 10: 00.

In the meantime, Kelly and Phillips walked the SSRMS off Destiny and on to the MBS at 05: 39. They then used the arm’s cameras to provide situational awareness views of the survey that Camarda and Kelly would perform using the OBSS. Begin­ning at 07: 00, the latter pair used the OBSS mounted on Discovery’s RMS to view the six areas of special interest on Discovery’s heat protection system highlighted by Houston following review of the images already downloaded. Programme managers told the media that they were “feeling good about Discovery coming home.’’ Noguchi and Robinson continued to prepare their equipment for their first EVA, planned for July 30.

Discovery’s crew sealed the hatches between the two vehicles when they returned to the Shuttle for their sleep period. Before they went to bed they lowered the internal pressure to allow Noguchi and Robinson to acclimatise to the lower pressure at which their EMUs would operate. The air removed from Discovery was used to replenish the station’s atmosphere. Discovery’s crew were awoken at 23: 43, and after their breakfast they prepared for the first EVA. Noguchi and Robinson began their pre­breathing of pure oxygen at 00: 39. At the same time Krikalev and Phillips walked the SSRMS off the MBS and back on to the exterior of Destiny, from where Lawrence and Kelly would operate it in support of the EVA.

The EVA began at 05: 46, July 30, when Noguchi and Robinson exited through Discovery’s airlock. Noguchi remarked, “What a view.’’ Robinson countered with, “There are just no words to describe how cool this is.’’

Once they were outside, Quest’s outer door was also opened to provide an emergency return to the station. Internally the hatches between Discovery and ISS had been closed while the two astronauts made their egress. They were now opened, to allow Collins and Camarda to transfer items between the two vehicles. During the EVA, Camarda also assisted Kelly in operating Discovery’s RMS, to use the OBSS to view seven areas of interest along the leading edge of Discovery’s port wing.

Having collected their tools, Noguchi and Robinson began a demonstration of how damaged heatshield tiles might be repaired on a future Shuttle flight. Working side by side, and using deliberately damaged tiles and RCC panels for the demon­stration, one astronaut repaired damaged tiles using the Emittance Wash Applicator (EWA) while the other attempted to repair RCC panel samples using the Non-Oxide Adhesive Experiment (NOAX). With that important task complete they moved to the exterior of Quest, where they installed the External Stowage Platform-2 (ESP-2) Attachment Device (ESPAD) and associated cabling.

Noguchi’s next task was to replace a GPS antenna mounted on the ITS, which he completed without difficulty. Meanwhile, Robinson collected the tools they would require on their second EVA, and also re-routed electrical power plugs to direct power to CMG-2, which had been off-line since a circuit breaker had tripped in March 2005. Power flowed to CMG-2 at 10: 20, and controllers in Houston began the gyro’s spin-up to 6,600 revolutions per minute before bringing it back on-line as part of the ISS attitude control system. With time to spare at the end of the EVA, the two men recovered two long-term exposure experiments and photographed some dis­turbed insulation on the exterior of Discovery’s crew compartment. Quest’s hatch was closed, as were the internal hatches between Discovery and ISS, while Noguchi and Robinson returned to Discovery’s airlock. The EVA ended after 6 hours 50 min­utes, at 12:36.

The day ended with Houston declaring Discovery’s tiles and thermal blankets fit to withstand re-entry. Their review of the RCC areas along the wings’ leading edges was still continuing. During the day Collins voiced her concerns over the foam shedding from the ET during launch saying, “Personally, I did not expect any large piece of foam to fall off the External Tank. We thought we had that problem licked.’’ During the day, the Shuttle’s flight had also been extended by 24 hours. The extension would allow for the transfer of more water and additional supplies, including two of the orbiter’s laptop computers, from Discovery to ISS, to support the new delay before the next Shuttle’s arrival at the station.

July 31 was a day of relatively light duties, including the transfer of equipment between the MPLM and the station, as well as interviews with journalists. Noguchi and Robinson reviewed plans for their second EVA, during which they would attempt to replace CMG-1, which had failed in June 2002, and had been off-line since that time. In preparation for the EVA, Lawrence and Kelly walked the SSRMS to the correct position on the exterior of Destiny.

Following their sleep period the crew were woken up at 23: 09, July 31, and began preparation for the EVA. Noguchi and Robinson opened Discovery’s airlock hatch at 04: 42, August 1, and set about preparing their tools. Meanwhile, controllers in Houston had turned off the electrical power to CMG-1. Both men made their way hand over hand to the Z1 Truss, on Unity’s zenith, where Noguchi mounted the work platform on the end of the SSRMS, which was operated by Lawrence and Kelly. During the ride out to his work place Noguchi remarked, “Oh, the view is priceless. I can see the moon.’’ The two men removed CMG-1, and Noguchi held it in his arms while he was manoeuvred down to Discovery’s payload bay. Robinson also made his way back to the payload bay. There, Noguchi temporarily stowed the old CMG while its replacement was removed from a crate and then replaced by the old unit. Noguchi held the replacement CMG-1 while he was manoeuvred back up to the Z1-Truss, where he waited for Robinson to arrive. The two men then worked to install the new

CMG. With the installation complete, the new CMG-1 was spun up and, after several hours of monitoring, brought on-line as part of the station’s attitude control system. Discovery’s hatch was closed at 11:56, after an EVA lasting 7 hours 14 minutes. The remainder of the day was spent transferring equipment and rubbish between the two spacecraft.

On the ground, Flight Director Paul Hill described the new attitude for keeping the crew informed on the state of their spacecraft:

“Our intent is never to hide the state of the vehicle from the crew. But has our threshold changed for TPS damage assessment? You bet it has. There are some things that we are significantly smarter on today than we were two and a half years ago, and I don’t know how we could be in any different place today, since we all know that TPS damage cost the lives of the last crew.’’

On August 2, Houston gave permission for Robinson to venture beneath Dis­covery and attempt to remove, or cut away the two protruding gap fillers during the third EVA, planned for the following day. The crew spent the day preparing for this additional task, which included Lawrence and Kelly practising the intended SSRMS manoeuvres using software carried in one of the station’s laptops. To make time for Robinson to work with the gap fillers, Lawrence and Kelly used the SSRMS to unstow the EPS-2 from its position in Discovery’s payload bay. This had originally been included in the timeline for the third EVA.

Following another sleep period, the Shuttle crew were awoken at 23: 09, August 2. Noguchi and Robinson exited Discovery’s airlock at 04:48, August 3, to begin their third EVA. Their first task was to make their way to the ESPAD that they had installed on the exterior of Quest during their first EVA. Lawrence and Kelly then manoeuvred ESP-2 into position on the ESPAD using the SSRMS. With the ESP secured in place the SSRMS was walked off Destiny and on to the MBS, mounted on the ITS.

Noguchi installed the MISSE-5 exposure experiment and removed the Rotary Joint Motor Controller from the ITS and placed it in storage. In the meantime, Kelly and Camarda used Discovery’s RMS, with the OBSS still attached, to view the tile and RCC repair experiments that Noguchi and Robinson had completed during their first EVA. With his tasks completed Noguchi moved over to offer whatever support he could to Robinson in his final task. Robinson mounted the SSRMS and was manoeuvred beneath Discovery’s nose, where he was easily able to pull the two protruding “gap fillers’’ out from between TPS tiles. Robinson told Houston, “It looks like the big patient is cured!’’ With that task complete, Noguchi and Robinson returned to Discovery’s airlock and sealed the hatch at 10:49, after 6 hours 1 minute of exposure to space.

Following their hectic schedule, August 4 was planned as a relatively easy day. Lawrence and Kelly walked the SSRMS off the MBS and back to the exterior of

Destiny. They then attached the free end to Raffaello, in advance of its undocking. Noguchi spoke to the Japanese Prime Minister by video link and the American astronauts received a call from President Bush, who told them:

“I just wanted to tell you all how proud the American people are of our astronauts. I want to thank you for being risk-takers for the sake of exploration. And I wish you Godspeed in your mission. I know you’ve got very important work to do ahead of you. We look forward to seeing the successful completion of this mission. And obviously, as you prepare to come back, a lot of Americans will be praying for a safe return.’’

A day of more equipment stowage was followed by a joint meal and a com­memoration of the STS-107 crew. During the day the Shuttle’s crew paid their respects to the American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts who have been lost in the exploration of space. Lawrence remarked:

“Even if the future is equally unimaginable to us, we can be sure that future generations will look upon our endeavours in space as we look upon those early expeditions across the seas. To those generations, the need to explore space will be as self-evident as the need previous generations felt to explore the Earth and the seas.’’

Krikalev and Phillips ended their day by preparing Unity’s CBM for Raffaello’s undocking, before both crews went to sleep in their respective spacecraft.

Discovery’s crew was woken up at 22: 15, August 4. Kelly and Lawrence used the SSRMS to undock Raffaello from Unity’s nadir, at 07:34, August 5. Raffaello now contained 3,175 kg of items dating back to Expedition-6, the last Expedition crew to be supported by a Shuttle flight. With the MPLM secured in Discovery’s payload bay at 10: 03, Camarda and Thomas joined Kelly and Lawrence to locate the OBSS along the starboard payload bay door sill. The remainder of the day was spent stowing equipment on Discovery’s mid-deck. Both crews went to bed at 14: 09.

Awake again at 22: 09, the two crews shared a farewell ceremony for the leaving visitors at 00: 36, August 6. Discovery’s crew returned to their spacecraft and the hatches were sealed at 01 : 14. Kelly was at the controls when Discovery undocked, at 02: 24, and moved away to a distance of 122 m. He began a fly-around manoeuvre at 03: 54, and finally manoeuvred clear of ISS at 05: 09. The crew were given the remainder of the day as free time, going to sleep at 00: 39, August 7. The ISS crew went to bed at 14: 09.

Discovery’s crew were woken up at 20: 39, and spent much of their work day stowing equipment for re-entry. The one remaining question was the area of TPS below Collins’ window which had been under review since it was first seen in video footage. Julie Payette called from Houston to say, “We have good news. The MMT just got to the conclusion that the blanket underneath… the window is safe for return. There is no issue.’’ During the day, Collins, Kelly, and Robinson tested Discovery’s aerodynamic surfaces and fired the orbiter’s thrusters. The day ended at 12:39, August 7. Meanwhile, the Expedition-11 crew spent a quiet day and adjusted their schedule back to their normal routine. They were woken up at 02: 00, August 7.

Discovery’s crew began August 7 by waking up at 20: 39. They commenced their final preparations for the de-orbit burn and re-entry. The crew had two opportunities to land in the pre-dawn darkness at KSC, at 04:47 or 06: 22, August 8, but Discovery was waved off for 24 hours, due to unpredictable weather. Following the wave-off, Discovery’s engines were fired at 08: 19 to optimise the landing opportunities on August 9. The crew’s day ended at 00: 39, August 9.

Up at 08: 39, the crew repeated their final preparations for re-entry, going through the checklist once again. All three landing sites, KSC, Florida, Edwards Air Force Base, California, and White Sands, New Mexico, were activated for this second attempt to land. Meanwhile, the world’s media were baying like dogs, waiting for Discovery to burn up, so they could repeat their tired calls for the space programme to be cancelled. Persistent thunderstorms over Florida led to the two KSC landing opportunities being cancelled. Discovery would now land in California. Travelling with its three SSMEs forward, Discovery’s thrusters performed retrofire at 07 : 06. Turning, the orbiter assumed the usual nose forward and high position for re­entry. Collins brought the flight to a successful close, gliding Discovery to a perfect landing at Edwards Air Force Base in the pre-dawn darkness, touching down at 08: 11.

Krikalev and Phillips sent their congratulations from ISS, but the successful landing meant that the Shuttle fleet was now grounded once more.

In her post-landing speech Collins remembered the crew of STS-107 once more:

“Today was a very happy day for us, but we have mixed feelings. We have very bittersweet feelings as we remember the Columbia crew… I thought about them the whole mission—what their experiences were. The Columbia crew believed in what they did, they believed in the space mission. I know if they were listening to me right now, they’d want us to continue this mission.’’

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin reminded the media at a press conference a few days later, when the crew returned to JSC in Houston:

“For two-and-a-half-years we have been through the very worst that manned spaceflight can bring us. Over the last two weeks, we have seen the very best.’’

He continued:

“Essentially, this was a test flight. It has provided data that we can use going forward. The bad news is there were three or four things we didn’t get. The good news is we hugely reduced any damage to the orbiter through the engineering measures we took to improve the tank. We specifically said the return to flight test sequence was two test flights. We plan for the worst and we hope for the best and that’s how we conduct business.’’

Collins was more personal when she spoke to the engineers who had returned the Shuttle to flight,

“Getting the Shuttle flying again was difficult work, but it was a labour of love. Words cannot describe how much my thanks go out to you for putting your heart and soul into what you believe.”

Canada became only the third nation to launch a satellite, in 1962. Despite this, Canada maintains no launch facilities of its own and uses NASA facilities within America’s national borders. The civilian Canadian Space Agency (CSA) (in French L’Agence Spatiale Canadienne or ASC) was not established until 1989. Canada co­operates regularly with NASA in America and is a “Co-operating State’’ with the

European Space Agency. By paying into the ESA budget, Canada is given a position on the main committees of the ESA. Canada also provides instruments to fly on European satellites and deep-space probes.

Canada has provided two elements that are vital to the construction of ISS, plus a third which is vital to Space Shuttle survivability in the final years of its service. All three were developed and built under NASA contracts:

• Remote Manipulator System (RMS): Development of the Shuttle’s RMS, popularly referred to as the “Canadarm”, began in 1974, when Canada agreed to develop and build a single RMS for the Shuttle orbiter Columbia. NASA subsequently ordered four more, for the other orbiters. The RMS was 15m long and had two rotating joints (pitch and yaw) at the shoulder, one joint (pitch) at the elbow, and three joints (pitch, yaw, and roll) at the wrist. The two booms were made of graphite epoxy. The upper boom was 5 m long, and the lower boom was 5.8 m long, both were 33 cm in diameter. A single end effector, on the free end, housed three wires that were used in conjunction to grasp special grapple fixtures on the items to be lifted. These wires pulled the payload snug against the end effector and allowed it to be moved around. Shuttle Mission Specialists operated the RMS from the orbiter’s aft flight deck, using either the Shuttle’s own computers to translate hand controller commands into smooth RMS move­ments, or manually, by commanding each rotation joint individually. The RMS was permanently fixed to the Shuttle’s payload bay door hinge-line and is returned to Earth with the orbiter at the end of each flight.

• Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), affectionately called “Canadarm-2”, was a more advanced tool than the Shuttle RMS. It was origin­ally designed to grasp the Shuttle and pull it in to dock with Space Station Freedom. The unique feature of the SSRMS was the Latching End Effector (LEE) at each end, which allowed either end to mate to a Power-Data Grapple Fixture (PDGF) on the exterior of ISS, while the free end performed the lifting tasks. This feature also allowed the SSRMS to be “walked” end over end across the exterior of the American sector of ISS, from one PDGF to another. The RMS on a docked Shuttle and the SSRMS were capable of working together, either lifting items out of the Shuttle payload bay, or handing items from one to the other.

The SSRMS was also designed to be mounted on the Mobile Base System, a small cart that could translate along rails mounted on the ram face of the ITS. This additional mobility allowed the SSRMS to support the construction of the ends of the ITS, while being mounted on and travelling along the face of those ITS elements already in place. The reach of the SSRMS was dictated by the necessity to move the Port-6 ITS from its temporary position on the Z-1 Truss and install it on the exposed end of the Port-5 ITS. The SRMS was designed for on-orbit replacement of its major parts and was not expected to return to Earth.

An extension tool, to be used with the SSRMS was the “Dextre” manipulator system. This consisted of two smaller Remote Manipulator Systems that could be used to complete more delicate work on the exterior of ISS without the requirement for crew members to perform EVAs.

• Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS): As a result of the STS-107 tragedy in February 2003, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board recommended that NASA develop a method of inspecting areas of the orbiter that had previously been inaccessible to the crew in flight. The OBSS provided an extension to the Shuttle’s RMS and the cameras and laser sensors on the OBSS allowed the crew to inspect those areas of their spacecraft that were not readily visible from the flight deck windows, or with the cameras on the un-extended RMS. On early flights the OBSS was mounted on the opposite payload bay door hinge-line to the RMS, making it easy for the latter to pick up. It was then returned to that location and carried back to Earth at the end of each flight. In 2007, STS-118 astronauts installed a mounting to allow the OBSS to be stored on the exterior of ISS when the Shuttle is retired in 2010. This would mean that the OBSS was still available to examine the exterior of the ISS for meteorite strikes, or other damage, even when the Shuttle is no longer flying. The Shuttle RMS, SSRMS, and OBSS were all developed and built by Macdonald, Dettwiler & Associates, Limited, Brampton, Ontario.

The first Canadian astronaut flew on the Shuttle in 1984 and was followed by a further 7 Canadian nationals who have taken part in a total of 13 Shuttle flights through the end of 2007. Two further Canadian astronauts have retired without flying in space.

Canada maintains a number of space centres:

• John H. Chapman Space Centre, Saint-Hubert, Quebec was the CSA’s Head­quarters and oversees the management of the national space programme.

• David Florida Laboratory, Ottawa, Ontario, an engineering facility.

• Mobile Servicing System Operations Complex (MOC), Longueluil, Quebec, prepared the Canadian systems and provided astronaut training on Shuttle RMS and SSRMS systems. It also provided full support for all RMS and SSRMS engineering and operations.

NASA suspended all Shuttle flights on June 25, 2002 as a result of small cracks, between 2.5 mm and 7.62 mm in length, being found in the metal liners used to direct liquid hydrogen flow inside the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) propellant lines on Atlantis, on July 11. Three cracks were subsequently found on Columbia’s No. 2 SSME and Atlantis’ and Discovery’s No. 1 SSMEs. One crack was found in the No. 1 and No. 2 SSMEs on Endeavour. Investigation showed that the cracks were most likely caused by bad welding, rather than age, or wear and tear. The entire Shuttle fleet was grounded as a safety measure while an investigation and replacement work was undertaken. The principal concern was that small pieces of metal might be ingested into an engine during a launch. Inspection of the five orbiters was expected to take the remainder of July. With no spare pipe liners in stock, repair would take at least 7 weeks. Replacement would require new liners to be manufactured, a task requiring several months.

In this same period, a mechanical fault was discovered in the bearings inside the hydraulic jacks that maintained the Mobile Launch Platform in the horizontal position during the Shuttle’s rollout to the launch pad. Fifteen cracks were discovered in Crawler-1 and a further 13 in Crawler-2. All 16 jacks on the two Crawler Transporters were replaced.

When the Expedition-5 crew were informed that their occupation of ISS had been extended for one month, Bursch wrote,

“We just got news that our Shuttle flight home has been delayed… That should send us over the six-month mark and we should break Shannon Lucid’s U. S. record of 188 continuous days in space. That feels nice to be able to share in a record… but I sure do miss my family.’’

Meanwhile, NASA’s own inspectors criticised the Administration for not thoroughly checking on United Space Alliance, the private contractor that serviced the Shuttles and prepared them for launch. NASA had announced that the estimated risk of a catastrophic failure of a Shuttle had risen from 1: 78 in 1986, the year STS-51L was lost, to 1: 55 in July 2002.

With all of this going on, STS-107, the “Freestar’’ solo science flight planned for launch on July 19,2002 was grounded indefinitely, but was expected to be launched at the end of the year. This 16-day flight, with a crew of 7, would carry the new SpaceHab Research Double Module, loaded with more than 80 experiments. The mission was designed to answer the criticism that ISS was not performing sufficient science. However, on the resumption of flights it was decided that STS-107 would not now be launched until after STS-112 and STS-113 had flown to ISS, delivering the Starboard-1 (S-1) and Port-1 (P-1) ITS segments, respectively, which would slip STS-107 to January 2003.

Progress M-48 lifted off at 21:48, August 28, 2003, and docked to Zvezda’s wake two days later, at 23: 40, August 30. The new Progress carried food, water, and propellants as well as replacement parts for ISS, tools, and a new laptop computer. There was also a cellphone and global positioning equipment, for use by the Soyuz TMA-2 crew in the event they land off-target, as the Soyuz TMA-1 crew had. There were a number of experiments for the Expedition-8 crew and others for ESA astronaut Pedro Duque to perform during his 8-day stay on ISS.

The launch was made amidst continuing concerns over funding for the Russian Soyuz and Progress vehicles needed to continue support of ISS occupation in the absence of Shuttle flights. The Russians felt that the details of their legal contract did not cover the unique situation that they now found themselves in and Energia managers were having difficulties making their political leaders and their budget controllers in Russia and America understand their difficulties. The subsequent allocation of 3 billion roubles to Rosaviakosmos would be used to launch 11 Soyuz TMA spacecraft on crew rotation flights and sufficient Progress vehicles to carry 80 tonnes of supplies to the station. None of the money would be used to develop and construct new Russian station modules. Rosaviakosmos managers pointed out that if the Russian government did not fund new station modules separately then Russian participation in ISS would remain limited to cosmonauts serving on Expedition crews, Soyuz TMA taxi crews, and robotic Progress cargo flights.

Meanwhile, Donald Thomas, the Mission Specialist who had been removed from the Expedition-5 crew due to concerns over his total radiation exposure, was named as ISS Programme Scientist, the head of America’s science programme on the station. In the same period, in Washington DC, NASA’s FY2004 budget had been settled at $15.3 billion, with politicians removing $20 million from the proposed ISS funding for that financial year.

Having delivered its oxygen supply and been loaded with rubbish, Progress M1- 10 undocked from Pirs at 15 : 42, September 4. The undocking cleared Pirs’ nadir for the arrival of Soyuz TMA-3 occupied by the Expedition-8 crew. Progress M1-10 would stay in orbit for the next month performing independent Russian scientific experiments involving using the spacecraft’s cameras to view sites of ecological interest, before it was commanded to re-enter and burn up on October 3, 2003.

Malenchenko and Lu spent the following week unloading Progress M-48 and using its supply of nitrogen to increase the pressure inside ISS. Repressurisation using the Progress’ oxygen would occur at a later date. The Progress’ thrusters were also tested in advance of a burn to raise the station’s altitude.

On September 10, Lu experienced trouble adjusting the resistance on one of the canisters on the RED exercise apparatus. He removed the canister and repaired it during the following week. Two new canisters for the RED were delivered on Progress M-48, but Lu hoped to leave them untouched so that the Expedition-8 crew could hold them in reserve in case of further failures.

Two days later the crew informed the ground that they could barely hear their transmissions. The fault was traced to equipment at Houston that relayed the audio uplink to ISS from the three control rooms at Houston, Huntsville, and Korolev. The problem was resolved by bypassing the equipment in question while it was repaired. In orbit, Lu continued his PFMI experiment programme. He also performed the first operations of the Hand Posture Analyser, an experiment that required him to wear an instrumented glove while performing a range of tasks. The experiment allowed its investigators to study how astronauts use their hands in microgravity. Lu also performed two educational tasks, making films in Destiny for use in American schools. Malenchenko replaced the failed battery in Zvezda and a computer hard drive. As the week ended, cameras on the exterior of ISS were used to image Hurricane Isobel as it crossed the Atlantic Ocean en route to its landfall in North Carolina.

The two astronauts powered up the SSRMS on September 23, for training and mechanical tests. The manoeuvres they performed placed part of the arm in sunlight so that any performance differences of the moment sensor in sunlight and shadow might be recorded. They also performed maintenance on two Russian Orlan EVA suits, ensuring they remained in good condition. Lu completed the Expedition-7 work with the PFMI experiment, while Malenchenko performed Russian medical experi­ments. He also made the first use of the station’s ultrasound equipment, using it to monitor Lu whilst he was exercising on the station’s stationary bicycle.

On October 1, the rocket motors on Progress M-48 were used to raise the station’s orbit and two days later Progress M1-10, which had spent a month perform­ing Russian experiments in orbit, was de-orbited and burned up in the atmosphere. The first week of October saw Lu install a Protein Crystal Growth experiment in the MSG, for Duque to use later in the month. He also set up a soldering experiment and an automated Earth observation camera. Malenchenko continued to perform Russian biomedical experiments, as well as observing thunderstorms, ocean biology, and studies of human-made disaster prediction. Weekly maintenance included Malenchenko inspecting fire sensors and checking systems in Pirs, prior to the arrival of Soyuz TMA-3. Lu configured the American laptops for the Expedi­tion-8 crew and both men worked together to perform maintenance on the treadmill and the RED.

During the following week, the crew began spending more time preparing for their return to Earth, at the end of the month. They donned their Sokol launch and re-entry suits and measured how well they fitted within their Soyuz couch liners. On

October 10, the two men in orbit had the opportunity to talk with the Expedition-8 crew in Korolev. Lu spent much of his time in Destiny, where he worked with the SAMS and made electrical connections as part of the In Space Soldering Investiga­tion (ISSI) experiment. Later in the week one of the station’s RPCMs, which routed electrical data throughout the station, failed. The failure disabled one camera and some onboard redundancy, but caused no problems to the arrival of Soyuz TMA-3. Work to identify the problem began immediately on the ground.

During their final week alone on ISS, Malenchenko and Lu concentrated on their preparation for returning to Earth. They carried out systems checks in Soyuz TMA-2 and began transferring items from ISS to their spacecraft. Lu continued to perform experiments and maintenance. On October 15, he replaced the malfunctioning RPCM in Destiny. Two days later, he spent several hours collecting water samples from the cooling system in Quest, which was used to cool the suits of astronauts making EVAs from the airlock. The samples would be returned to Earth for analysis.

As his occupation of ISS drew to a close, Lu told of earlier plans to abandon ISS during a press conference:

“The critical things the ground cannot do, of course, is repair and change out things up here… Luckily, nothing has happened that could cripple the Space Station, while we were up here… I’m much more comfortable with a crew on board knowing they could take care of something you had not planned for.’’

Indeed, this was a lesson learned the hard way by the Russians with their Salyut and Mir stations.

On August 9, Krikalev and Phillips began preparation of the Pirs airlock and the tools that they would use in their next Stage EVA, planned for after the STS-114 flight, the work continued throughout the week. In Zvezda, the Russian Vozdukh carbon dioxide removal system stopped working on August 11. While Russian engin­eers began troubleshooting, controllers at Houston activated the American Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly to scrub the station’s atmosphere. At 01: 44, August 12, Krikalev surpassed the 747 days 14 hours 14 minutes 11 seconds human spaceflight endurance record held by Sergei Avdeyev. He discussed the moment in his pre-launch interview:

“I probably never paid enough attention to this record-setting subject because [the] job itself is very interesting for me. Being there and being able to look back to Earth, to do something challenging; that was really important. How many days was not as important.’’

The 62nd EVA in the ISS programme began at 03: 02, August 18, 2005, when Krikalev and Phillips exited Pirs wearing Orlan suits. After preparing their tools, their first task was to recover three canisters from the Biorisk experiment that had been installed on the exterior of Pirs, in January 2005, during the Expedition-10 flight. Next they moved to the exterior of Zvezda and prepared the MPAC/SEEDs exposure samples for removal. Leaving the samples in position for the time being, they moved to Zvezda’s wake, to install a back-up television camera to assist in the docking of ESA’s ATV during its first flight, planned for 2006. They also photo­graphed the condition of the Kroma experiment, which measured the residue from Zvezda’s thrusters as well as replacing the sample containers in the Russian material exposure experiment. When they returned to Pirs with their tools and the MPAC and SEED experiments, they were running 45 minutes behind schedule. As the next task, the relocation of the grapple fixture that had originally held a Strela crane from the exterior of Zarya to PMA-3 on the exterior of Unity, was estimated to take 2 hours, Russian controllers decided to delay the task to a later EVA. Krikalev and Phillips closed the hatch on Pirs at 20: 00, ending the EVA after 4 hours 58 minutes.

Following the loss of the Russian Vozdukh system, the American Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly also failed, on August 18, due to a stuck valve.

Following the landing of STS-114, Administrator Griffin let it be known that he still hoped to solve the foam-shedding problem on the ET and launch STS-121 on

schedule, in September 2005. That changed on August 18, when the launch was moved back to March 2006. At the same time the decision was made to swap orbiters and free Atlantis for STS-115. STS-121 was scheduled as the second test-flight, following the flight of STS-114. It would carry an MPLM full of equipment and stores to ISS before STS-115 launched the next element of the ITS and resumed the construction of ISS. Meanwhile, those ETs that had been previously delivered to KSC were returned to the Michoud Assembly Facility, Louisiana for testing and any modifications identified as a result of the post-STS-114 investigation.

With their EVA behind them, Krikalev and Phillips completed unpacking the supplies delivered by STS-114. They also commenced filling Progress M-53 with rubbish, in preparation for its undocking, on September 7. On August 23, Krikalev replaced a faulty valve in the Vozdukh carbon dioxide removal system, returning the unit to full operation. The following day, Phillips replaced a laptop computer used as part of the station’s inventory system. On the same day the crew exercised a depressurisation emergency on the station.

The following week the two men prepared the station’s laptop computers for a software update that would be up-linked later in the month. They also rehearsed an emergency evacuation on Soyuz TMA-6 and completed new medical experiments, delivered by STS-114. Progress M-53 was fully packed by the end of the first week in September, by which time the crew had also upgraded their treadmill, during two days of work using parts delivered by the Shuttle.

Post-World War II European space efforts were originally split between two orga­nisations. The European Launch Development Organisation (ELDO), to develop a space launch vehicle, and the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO), to develop and exploit payloads for those launchers. The European Space Agency (ESA) was established in 1974 by merging these two organisations. ESA’s Head­quarters building was in Paris, and oversaw the activities of 16 member states, 11 of which are participating in the ISS programme. Most member states also have national space agencies and some have thriving national space programmes. In the intervening years ESA has developed a reputation for reliable satellites and deep – space probes. The French/ESA Ariane launch vehicle programme has developed through 14 different configurations, of which the latest, the Ariane-V ES-ATV, is the only one involved in the ISS programme. Ariane has established a reliable series of launch vehicles, placing ESA at the forefront of the worldwide commercial launch vehicle market. In 2007, two out of every three commercial payloads then in Earth orbit had been launched by Ariane launch vehicles.

ESA originally co-operated widely with NASA, but information-sharing restric­tions in America in the 1990s led to a change. In 2007, ESA considered Russia to be its principal partner in space exploration. For ISS Russia had an agreement with ESA whereby if the third couch on a Soyuz spacecraft launched to ISS was not taken by a commercial Space Flight Participant, it would be offered to ESA on a commercial basis, before Russia put one of their own cosmonauts in it. ESA has also co-operated with China.

Human spaceflight has never been a major part of ESA’s mission. As a result, although ESA maintains an astronaut cadre, it has developed no crewed spacecraft of its own. A French national project, the Hermes spaceplane, was designed to service the original concept of a free-flying Columbus module, but was not developed. Instead, European astronauts are launched on American Shuttles and Russian spacecraft on a commercial basis. The first ESA astronaut flew on the Shuttle in 1983 and, as of 2007, ESA has between 10 to 15 astronauts in training, several of whom have flown solo Shuttle flights and both Shuttle and Soyuz flights to ISS. So far, only one ESA astronaut has served on an ISS Expedition crew.

ESA’s main participation areas in the ISS programme were

• Multi-Purpose Logistic Modules Leonardo, Raffaello, and Donnatello were Europe’s major input to ISS during the early years of its construction. The three pressurised cargo modules were carried into orbit in the Shuttle’s payload bay. Following docking they were lifted out of the bay by the Shuttle’s Remote Manipulator System and docked to Unity, from where they were accessed internally and unloaded. After re-filling with items to be returned to Earth they were undocked and returned to the Shuttle’s payload bay, allowing them to be returned to Earth and re-used. This was the principal method of returning major items to Earth as all three alternative ISS cargo delivery systems were designed to be destroyed during re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere.

• Columbus was the principal ESA ISS element. The pressurised laboratory module would be launched by STS-120 and docked to Harmony. The laboratory would house ten standard experiment racks housing the following experiments:

1. Fluid Science Laboratory (FSL)

2. European Physiology Modules (EPMs)

3. Biolab

4. European Drawer Rack (EDR)

5. European Stowage Rack (ESR)

The ten racks would be split 51%/49% between European and American experi­ments. The Columbus module would also have an external facility to allow for the fixture of experiments that required exposure to the space environment. The

first two external experiments were

a. European Technology Exposure Facility (EuTEF)

b. Solar Monitoring Observatory (SOLAR)

Two additional external experiments were also planned:

c. Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space (ACES)

d. MISSE-6 (NASA)

• Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) is a delivery vehicle for dry cargo, propel­lant, water, and air. It will be launched by Ariane-V ES-ATV and then perform an automated rendezvous and docking at the rear of Zvezda. The ATV’s Kurs rendezvous equipment and Soyuz docking probe were supplied by RSC Energia, in return for the European Command and control computers in Zvezda, which were the same as those in the ATV. After unloading it would be filled with rubbish before being detached from the station, manoeuvred clear, and com­manded to re-enter the atmosphere, where it would be heated to destruction.

• Ariane-V ES-ATV is a heavy-lift launch vehicle, is a mixture of the Ariane-V ECS first stage and the Ariane-V G second stage, and would be used to launch the ESA Automated Transfer Vehicle to ISS at 12-month to 15-month intervals. It is launched from the Guiana Space Centre, in South America.

• Node-2 (Harmony), Node-3 ( ), and the Cupola have all been described

previously. They were constructed by ESA under a NASA contract that provided for the launch of Columbus on an American Shuttle in return for their construction.

ESA maintains six major centres related to their space programmes. In addition, member states maintain national centres to support their own activities related to ESA programmes:

• European Space Agency Headquarters, Paris, France, oversees and manages all ESA programmes.

• European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), Noordwijk, Holland, is ESA Headquarters and is where most ESA programmes are developed and managed.

• European Astronaut Centre, Cologne, Germany, is where the European astronaut group is trained.

• Columbus Control Centre (COL-CC), Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, is the control centre for the Columbus Laboratory Module and the operation centre for European experiments on ISS.

• Guiana Space Centre (GSC), was originally established by the French Space Agency as the launch site for their Ariane series of launch vehicles. Today it is operated jointly by France and ESA. For the ISS programme the GSC will be used to launch the Ariane-V, carrying ATVs to the station.

• Automated Transfer Vehicle Control Centre (ATV-CC), Toulouse, France, would operate the ATV in flight.

In 1997, Brazil had signed a $200 million contract with NASA to provide an EXPRESS Pallet for launch on a Shuttle flight now planned for 2005. Brazil’s contract had included the selection of a Brazilian astronaut who would fly on a Shuttle flight to ISS. In mid-2002 Brazil informed NASA that it would be unable to produce the Pallet, citing budget difficulties as the reason for their failure to deliver.

Shortly after Brazil’s decision, Japan announced that the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) Kibo would not now be delivered to NASA’s Space Station Proces­sing Facility at KSC until 2006, one year later than scheduled, due to budget difficulties. The JEM Centrifuge Accommodation Module (JEM CAM) would be delivered to NASA in 2006. The delay meant that the ESA Columbus Laboratory Module might be launched earlier than planned, as might the Canadian Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator, Dextere.

At the same time the speculation over who would fill the third couch on the October Soyuz TMA-1 taxi flight came to an end. Lance Bass’ training came to an abrupt end when he failed to make the relevant $20 million payments to the Russians. Russian cosmonaut Yuri Lonchakov would now be the third crew member.

China launched its first crewed spacecraft on October 15, 2003. The Soyuz-based ShenZhou-5 was launched from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Centre in Gansu Province, on a Long March II-F launch vehicle. The single taikonaut (astronaut), Yang Liwei, made 14 orbits before returning to Earth and landing in Inner Mongolia on October 16, after a flight lasting 21 hours 23 minutes. China had become only the third nation to develop the ability to launch a crewed spacecraft into orbit.

Following the Chinese launch, Houston had told the Expedition-7 crew, “We have a news item to pass on. The world’s spacefaring nations have been joined by a new member tonight. For the next few hours, Russia and the United States will share the heavens with China.’’

Lu replied, “That is very good news. From one spacefaring nation to another, we wish them congratulations.’’ When discussing the Chinese flight, both of the Expedi­tion-7 crew members were positive. Lu stated, “Personally, I think it’s a great thing. The more people in space, the better off we all are.’’

Malenchenko added, “I’m glad to have somebody else in space (besides) Ed and me. It was great work by thousands and thousands of people from China. I congratulate all of them.’’

NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe was equally positive, “They are developing a capability—this can’t be understated—to accomplish something that only two other nations on the planet have ever done. That’s a rather historic, hallmark achieve­ment.” Despite these positive words, in the coming years NASA would reject China’s attempts to become part of ISS.