Category Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006

Flight Crew

FEI, Junlong, 40, Chinese PLA Air Force, commander NIE, Haisheng, 40, Chinese PLA Air Force, operator

Flight Log

Five pairs of yuhangyuans trained for the second Chinese manned space flight. One month prior to the flight, three pairs were selected to continue training, one as prime crew and two as back-ups. The prime crew was announced shortly prior to launch, with their back-ups announced as Liu Boming and Jing Haipeng (Team 1), and Zhai Zhigang and Wu Jie (Team 2). Nie and Zhai had backed up Yang two years before.

The timing, duration and objectives of the flight were discussed in the western media for months, before an official release indicated an October flight of about five days. Improvements had been made to the launch vehicle, whose assembly was completed on 26 September. The spacecraft was joined to the launch vehicle on 4 October. There had been over 110 upgrades to Shenzhou 6 over its predecessor, in four specific areas: upgrading the spacecraft to support the flight of two crewmembers; upgrading the internal configuration of the crew compartment; improvements to the safety systems; and improvements to the system components. In all, over 40 new items of equipment and six pieces of software were incorporated into the Shenzhou 6. There had also been over 75 upgrades to the launch vehicle since Shenzhou 5.

The crew had arrived at the launch site 2 hours 45 minutes prior to launch and were sealed inside their spacecraft about 30 minutes later. The launch was nominal, with powered flight lasting 583 seconds. Twenty-one minutes into the mission, the Shenzhou propulsion system was used to adjust the initial 200 km orbit to one of 211 x 345 km. Shortly after launch, search teams were dispatched to recover the telemetry “black box” ejected from the launcher during the ascent. It was thought

that it included telemetry that had not been downlinked to the ground. It was found 45 minutes after the launch.

During the flight, the two crew members conducted regular communication sessions with the ground, reporting on their personal condition and the status of the spacecraft, and speaking with their families. Several changes in orbital parameters were conducted during the five days in space, to test the operational capability of the Shenzhou orbital manoeuvring systems with a crew aboard. During the second orbit, the internal hatch into the OM was opened for the first time, and Fei was the first to enter. Three hours later, Fei swapped places with Nie. Very few details of the orbital activities of the crew were released, but the use of the OM and the extended flight allowed both men to take off their pressure suits for most of the orbital duration. Only one slept at any one time, however, with the second monitoring onboard systems.

The crew also shut and pressure-tested the internal hatch integrity, both for when the OM was separated and for the future when the OM would be used as an airlock to perform EVA. They also performed an experiment to test the reactions of the crew within the OM and DM, videotaping their somersaults and movement between the modules. The crew conducted a range of “scientific experiments”, which included Earth observation and monitoring, and research on “biological and material sciences.” Exact details were not forthcoming. The most important “experiment” in relation to future plans for EVA, docking, crew transfer and the creation of a small “space station”, was the habitability studies conducted throughout the five days by both men.

As with the previous Shenzhou mission, the OM was separated and left in orbit prior to entry and landing. The “mission” of the OM was officially ended on 15 April 2006 after nearly 3,000 orbits of the Earth, giving mission controllers experience in the extended control of a spacecraft in Earth orbit.

Milestones

246th manned space flight

2nd Chinese manned space flight

1st Chinese two-person space flight

1st extended manned test flight of Shenzhou

Nie Haisheng celebrates his 41st birthday in space (13 Oct)

One of the most frustrating and time consuming chores to do with collating data on each manned space flight is in finding original source material that is consistent. Questions are constantly being raised that require a definitive answer, or at least standard application, if you want to make sense of it all. To give you some examples: “Where does ‘space’ begin?” “What distinguishes a high-altitude research pilot from a space explorer or a ‘tourist’?’’ ‘‘Are the recent ‘X-Plane’ flights really sub-orbital space-flights?’’ ‘‘In multi-person crews, which one enters ‘space’ first?’’ ‘‘Upon land­ing, does a Shuttle mission end when the wheels touch the runway, or when they come to a stop?’’ ‘‘Does an EVA start from when the space walker puts a suit on, or when they step out of the airlock?’’ All of these questions find different answers even in official data and this can make a space author’s job that much harder.

What is clear is that when a spacecraft enters orbit, it is assigned a specific orbital object catalogue number. Therefore, one can follow these orbital flights in chronological order, even if the details are open to interpretation. To most crews, ‘‘the mission’’ is one of the most important objectives for their flight and their future careers, and they are assessed by their performance and achievements on ‘‘the mission’’ and its specific objectives or tasks. Usually, records, milestones and ceremonies are not as important to the flight crew as they are to watchers on the ground.

This book, therefore, is not (nor intends to try to be), a definitive record of all manned space flight aspects. Indeed, it is doubtful that such a tome could actually be written, and certainly not in the tight confines of 900 pages. What we have tried to do instead is to present is a single, handy, quick reference source of who did what on which mission, and when they accomplished it, in the 45 years between 1961 and 2006. For more detailed information, other books in this Springer-Praxis series can be referred to, as can those cited in the bibliography of this or other books in the series.

The objective of this book was to keep things simple, so we have therefore focused mostly on orbital missions (or in a few cases, those which were intended for orbital

flight and had left the pad, but never made it into space). The other “sub-orbital”-type missions are listed in context, but are detailed in the opening sections.

By way of introduction, an overview of the methods used to reach space or fly particular types of mission is presented. This is followed by a look at those missions which essentially bridged the gap between aeronautical flight and space flight. Finally, the programmes that have actually been conducted are overviewed, before each orbital space flight is addressed, starting with Yuri Gagarin aboard Vostok 1 in April 1961 and ending with the launch of the 14th resident crew to ISS in September 2006, a span of 45 years. We have also started recording the missions leading towards the 50th anniversary of Gagarin’s flight with the currently manifested missions of 2006-2011, reminding us all that the log is an ever-expanding account of the human exploration of space. As one mission ends, another is being prepared for flight.

In the detail of the main log entries, we have focused on the highlights and achievements for each mission, as this book was always intended to supplement the more in-depth volumes in the Praxis series, as well as other works. It is also intended as a useful starting volume for those who are just becoming interested in human space flight activities and who have not had the opportunity to collect the information from past missions or completed programmes. We also hope that this work will help to generate other, more detailed works on past and current pro­grammes, and in time on those programmes that are even now being planned and will write the future pages of space history – and further entries in the Praxis Log of Manned Space Flight.

Tim Furniss Dave Shayler Mike Shayler September 2006

Assembling a book of this nature would be impossible without a network of fellow space sleuths and journalists. In particular, the assistance over many years of the following friends and colleagues is much appreciated:

• Australia: Colin Burgess

• Europe: Brian Harvey (Ireland), Bart Hendrickx (Belgium) and Bert Vis (The Netherlands)

• UK: Phil Clark, Rex Hall, David Harland, Gordon Hooper, Neville Kidger, Andy Salmon

• USA: Michael Cassutt, John Charles, James Oberg and Asif Siddiqi.

The authors also wish to express their appreciation for the on-going help and support of the various Public Affairs departments of NASA, ESA, and the Russian Space Agency.

The assistance of the Novosti Press Agency and US Information Service was of great help in detailing the pioneering years of human space flight.

Various national and international news organisations were also often consulted, including the publications, Flight International, Aviation Week and Space Technology, and Soviet Weekly.

The staff of the British Interplanetary Society (with its publication Spaceflight) have continued to support our research for many years. We have fond memories of Ken Gatland, past President of the BIS and space flight author, who was an inspiration to many with his documentation of various missions and space activities.

We must express our thanks to Colonel Al Worden (CMP Apollo 15) for his generous foreword.

We also appreciate the help and support of our families during the time it took to compile and prepare this book from its original idea to the finished format.

Last but not least, we appreciate the support and understanding of Clive Hor – wood, Publisher of Praxis, with a project that took a lot out of all of us. Thanks to the staff of Springer-Verlag in both London and New York for post production support; to Neil Shuttlewood and staff at Originator Books for their typesetting skills; to Jim Wilkie for his continued skills in preparing the cover for the project, and to the book printer for the final result.

I was born during the great American Depression, in 1932, at a time when our telephone had a hand crank to call the operator and there were six other families on the line, the bathroom was outdoors, there was no running water and our drinking water came from a hand-dug well in the front yard. Money was tight, but there was a lot of work and fun on my grandparent’s farm. We lived nicely and I can still hear the rain beating on the tin roof at night.

As I grew up, my parents bought a small farm in Jackson, Michigan, and I, along with my five brothers and sisters, lived there during my teen years. One of the most memorable days during those times was the crash of a small airplane behind our house. I was awed by the laid back spirit of the pilots, and thought that would be a great thing to do sometime. The problem was that I did not see myself living my life on a farm. So, when I graduated from high school I searched for the right college to attend, considering that my parents did not have the money to send me to a good one. I ended up going to the United States Military Academy at West Point, graduating there in 1955. Since there was no Air Force Academy at the time, West Point needed to send a third of each class to the Air Force. I elected to go to the Air Force because I thought promotions would be quicker. I found out that was not going to be true, but in the meantime I discovered that I had a real talent for flying, something with which I had very little prior experience.

I never considered a career in the space program, because the possibility of getting in the program was so remote. I flew fighter aircraft for a number of years, and became my squadron’s armament officer because I spent a lot of time in the hanger learning the maintenance business for high performance fighters. While there I rebuilt the armament shop into a very modern work place to motivate the technicians and increase the quality of work. It was a successful effort and the squadron became the role model for others. In fact, I was asked to go to headquarters to help other squadrons do the same thing. Instead, I asked for and received an assignment back to college to learn about guided missiles. While in college I was the operations officer for

all the Air Force pilots, and that fact helped me to get into the Test Pilot School at Farnborough, England. I was transferred to the RAF for a year while at the school, and I returned to the United States to teach at the USAF Research Pilots School at Edwards AFB in California. I still did not believe I had a chance to become an astronaut, but I wanted to be the best test pilot possible. However, NASA had a selection program, and I applied in late 1965. Because of my academic and flight background, I was lucky enough to be selected in April of 1966.

I found out very quickly that one does not become an astronaut by being selected. You have to make a space flight to really and truly be an astronaut, and there was a long training period to finish before assignment to a flight. After that period, which included all the spacecraft operations and special geology training, I was assigned to the support crew of Apollo 9. My job was to check out the spacecraft at the factory, and to complete the build up and check of the hatch that would be used between the Command Module and the Lunar Module. Subsequently, I was assigned to the Apollo 12 back-up crew as Command Module Pilot (CMP), and then to the Apollo 15 prime crew as CMP. Apollo 15 has been proclaimed the most scientific flight of the Apollo program. We trained hard for the extensive science we would accomplish on the flight, and the results were to confirm our efforts were worthwhile.

During the course of our flight training and preparations it was quite clear to us that a vast amount of data was being accumulated. However, we were focused on the flight and what we had to do to make it successful. Once the flight was under way, we concentrated on the science and experiments we were assigned, and how we would keep on the time line so we would not miss anything. At the same time, Mission Control recorded and maintained the down link data for scientific and post-flight analysis. We kept minimal written data on board because of the crush of schedule and the attempt to get all the data we could from both observations and science equipment.

After the flight, all the data was reduced at Johnson Space Center in the form of written reports and Prime Investigator research papers. This process took many months, and in some cases years before any comprehensive knowledge became clear. Because of this process, our knowledge of the Moon has been enhanced tremendously.

Our business was not record keeping, but completing the mission in a successful fashion. Others were responsible for the data and records of our flight. Today, the records are the most important historical evidence of the flight of Apollo 15.

There have been many flights to near space, almost space, and long distance space. They all require a very high level of competence and extraordinary engineering. The X-15, for example, was a magnificent machine, and it opened the way to space. Yuri Gagarin and Al Shepard started the human space initiative, and since then well over two hundred flights have been launched. Each is unique in its own way, with different mission objectives and goals. Humans are curious about what is over the horizon, and they have been exploring for thousands of years to find new continents, new routes to markets, better places to live and work or to find new riches to take back home. Space is also part of our exploration dream, and has been since Jules Verne opened our minds to the possibility of space flight. He even had his lunar crew of three men launch from a site near Cape Kennedy, go to the Moon and return and land in the ocean.

Maybe fact follows science fiction, but here we are today launching crews from Cape Kennedy, and we will soon be sending them back to the Moon.

My journey to space is pretty typical of the American Astronauts. We all had flight and academic experience, but none of us understood what it would take to go into space until we were actually involved in the program. It turned out that hard work was the key, and that training was non-stop before any flight. We also had to maintain a certain degree of calm and fatalism. I remember thinking, the night before launch, that as I talked to my family it just might be the last conversation I would have with them. But the rewards were worth the risk and we did our jobs gladly and freely.

To really understand how all this came about, this book is essential reading. Starting with Yuri Gagarin and following on through the years, this book will educate you on the fast progression of the space programs of several countries. Understanding where we have been will help you understand where we are going. Enjoy!

Colonel Alfred M. Worden USAF Ret.

NASA Group 5 (1966) Pilot Astronaut Command Module Pilot Apollo 15, 1971

To Fallen Heroes

The crews of Apollo 1, Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11, Challenger and Columbia And all the other space explorers who are gone, but never forgotten.

Every journey begins with the first small step. Each small step into space contributes to a larger leap to colonise the cosmos. Each mission’s achievements contribute to the success of the next entry in the world’s manned space flight log book. What started as national rivalry has evolved into international cooperation where each successive space crew can genuinely claim they “came in peace for all mankind.’’

Each log entry was compiled to the same basic layout. The missions are given their official designation but are not numbered chronologically. With variations in defining exactly what constitutes a space flight, and with the increasing tendency for inter­national crews to launch and/or land on separate missions, we have found it far simpler to list the missions in launch sequence and to describe their achievements, than to say superficially which world mission or national mission it was.

The International Designation is the official orbital identification number issued by the International Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). COSPAR gives all satellites and fragments an international designation, based on the year of the launch and the number of successful orbital launches in that calendar year (1 Jan-31 Dec). For example, Apollo 11 received the designation 1969-59A, indicating that it was the 59th orbital launch during the year 1969. The letter code at the end of the designation refers to the type of vehicle launched. Normally, the letter “A” is given to the main instrumented spacecraft; “B” to the rocket; and “C”, “D,” “E” and so on assigned to fragments or ejections. Letters “I” and “O” are not used. If there are more than 24 pieces (such as debris from an explosion), the sequence after “Z” becomes “AA, AB and so on up to “AZ”, and then “BA”, “BB”, etc. For this volume, we have listed only the “A” designations. These items are tracked by the North American Aerospace Defense command (NORAD) which supplies orbital data elements (via NASA) on all traceable satellites – very useful in the identification of potential space debris impacts. In the years 1957-1962, a different system was used, with designations utilising the symbols of the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet. For the years 1961-1962 in this volume, we iterate these Greek letters in full for clarity.

The launch date, launch site and landing date and site are given as local time; we have not tried to convert to GMT or UT. We have omitted local times for clarity wherever possible, although for some of the more historic missions in the days before

data was accessible at the click of a mouse button, we have kept some of this data in as a useful reference point. The launch vehicle details have been included where known. It is likely that further data will come to light in future years that will enable us to give a more complete picture of such information.

Durations are given from official sources (NASA or Soviet/Russian) and for Shuttle missions, this is from lift-off to wheel stop at the end of its runway landing. Callsigns (when used) and mission objectives are also presented for information.

Crew details are for the PRIME, or flight, crew only and are presented in the order commander; pilot; then specialists in numerical sequence. Each crew entry lists their full name, age at time of launch, military affiliation or civilian, position on this crew, the number of times they have flown into space, and their previous missions for quick cross-reference. All crew members are either American (astronauts) or Soviet (cosmonauts) unless their nationality is noted.

The flight log records key mission events and, where necessary, pre- and post­flight operations. When an X-15, sub-orbital or X-prize flight occurred, it is men­tioned briefly for continuity in the main text. The details of such missions are included in the opening sections.

When a crew is launched on one mission and returns on another, their whole flight is reported under their launch mission and only briefly mentioned under their landing mission. Therefore, when a space station crew is launched with a core crew of two with a third passenger, the passenger’s activities are recorded along with that of the core space station crew in the same “mission log.’’ This process evolved during the Mir programme, in which guest cosmonauts would fly with an expedition crew who remained on the station, while the guest returned home after about a week in the older spacecraft and with the previous core crew.

On ISS, there have been several occurrences of a complete ISS core crew being launched as “passengers’’ on a Shuttle mission, and landing “as passengers” on a separate Shuttle mission. Here, we have covered the launch of the Shuttle mission separately, followed by the resident crew’s activities as second entry and the landing mission as a third.

Milestones are significant events, achievements and celebrations relating to that crew or mission’s flight into space.

We have not provided references as there are just so many to collate all this data from. The most referred to sources are listed in the bibliography and further details of sources of information can be obtained from the authors if so desired.

Following these guidelines, the Quest for Space section covers those missions that did not reach orbital flight but are part of the story of human space exploration: the 13 launches between 1962 and 1968 of the X-15 that exceeded the then-designated 50 mile (80 km) limit; the two Mercury Redstone sub-orbital missions in 1961; the Apollo 1 pad fire that claimed the lives of three American astronauts on 27 January 1967 just two weeks prior to their planned mission; the Soyuz T10-1 pad abort which occurred just seconds prior to the planned lift-off; and the recent X-Prize flights of Spaceship 1 in 2004.

The launch abort of the Soyuz 18-1 mission in April 1975 is included in the log entries, as is the loss of Challenger during the STS 51-L mission in January 1986. Both of these missions had launched and were “missions in progress” when they encoun­tered their specific difficulties. Had they continued in their planned trajectory, both would have reached orbit.

Wherever possible, we have followed the metric system of weights and distances.

The Appendices review orbital space flight between 1961 and 2006; the cumulative time that astronauts and cosmonauts have spent in space in the order of most experienced; and a brief timeline of historic and key missions in the exploration of space.

Call signs: In the early days of manned space flight, there was no requirement to identify one spacecraft from another because there was never more than one in orbit at a time. Mercury astronauts, however, following the tradition of pilots naming their aircraft, assigned names to their Mercury capsules, adding the number 7 to signify the seven original Mercury astronauts. Thus, the Mercury missions were also known as Friendship 7, Sigma 7, Aurora 7 etc. Had Deke Slayton flown, he would have used the call sign Delta 7

The Gemini spacecraft used the spacecraft’s number as a call sign (though for a while the Gemini 4 astronauts tried to assign the name “American Eagle’’ to the flight and it was also known as “Little Eva’’ – for the EVA or spacewalk). The early Apollo missions also did not require a call sign but by now, distinctive mission emblems were being worn by the crews (from Gemini 5). These have become a traditional part of any manned space flight and are descriptive and colourful. The names of the crew are usually displayed on the emblem, though not always. Programme emblems, activity emblems (such as the EVA badge), payload and support teams emblems and (from 1978) Astronaut Group selection emblems have evolved from these. Russian cosmo­nauts and Chinese yuhangyuans have displayed similar types of emblems.

From Apollo 9 and the first manned flight test of the Lunar Module, it was necessary to be able to clearly identify both the Command and Lunar modules during radio conversations as both would be flying separately at some stage during the mission, with members of the crew aboard each module. Thus, the Command Module became “Gumdrop” and the Lunar Module “Spider.” This practice continued throughout Apollo up to Apollo 17. For Skylab and the American Apollo spacecraft used during the ASTP flight, the crews used the call signs “Skylab” or “Apollo”. When the Americans began to fly the Space Shuttle in 1981, the call sign became the name of the individual orbiter that was being used, as each has its own moniker.

For the Soviet and Russian missions, each pilot cosmonaut chose their own call sign. When in command of a mission, they adopted that call sign for the flight, with other crewmembers appending “2” or “3” to it to identify themselves individually during the mission. When engineer cosmonauts began to fly as mission commanders in 1978, they too were assigned personal call signs, and resident Soviet/Russian space station crews were also known by the call sign of the commander. For ISS missions, it appears that cosmonaut Soyuz TMA commander call signs are used for contact over Russian ground stations and during flights of the Soyuz spacecraft independent of the ISS. It is unclear if Chinese Shenzhou missions or yuhangyuans have adapted a call sign.