Category Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006

STS-78

Int. Designation

1996-036A

Launched

20 June 1996

Launch Site

Pad 39B, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Landed

7 July 1996

Landing Site

Runway 33, Shuttle Landing Facility, KSC, Florida

Launch Vehicle

OV-102 Columbia/ET-79/SRB BI-081/SSME #1 2041;

#2 2039; #3 2036

Duration

16 days 21 hrs 47 min 45 sec

Call sign

Columbia

Objective

Life and Microgravity Spacelab programme

Flight Crew

HENRICKS, Terence Thomas “Tom”, 43, USAF, commander, 4th mission Previous missions: STS-44 (1991); STS-55 (1993); STS-70 (1995)

KREGEL, Kevin Richard, 39, civilian, pilot, 2nd mission Previous missions: STS-70 (1995)

LINNEHAN, Richard Michael, 38, civilian, mission specialist 1 HELMS, Susan Jane, 38, USAF, mission specialist 2, 3rd mission Previous missions: STS-54 (1993); STS-64 (1994)

BRADY Jr., Charles Eldon, 44, USN, mission specialist 3 FAVIER, Jean-Jacques, 47, civilian, French payload specialist 1 THIRSK, Robert Brent, 42, civilian, Canadian payload specialist 2

Flight Log

The launch of STS-78 not only occurred on time, it also featured the first use of a video TV camera transmitting images from the flight deck. Filming began with the ingress of the crew into their seats and finished at MECO. The video link was also used during the descent on 7 July. During post-launch assessment of the SRBs, it was found that a hot-gas path had penetrated the motor field joints up to, but not past, the O-ring capture feature. This was the first time that a Redesigned SRM (RSRM) had shown penetration into the J-joint, although flight safety was not compromised and all performance data indicated that the design specifications were met. The problem was attributed to new, environmentally friendly adhesive and cleaning fluid used in the area. The rather quick turnaround of the commander/pilot pairing from STS-70 (less than one year) was done to evaluate the effects of such a short gap between flights on mission training and preparation time. NASA had often reviewed proposals to re-fly an “orbiter” crew (commander, pilot and MS2/flight engineer), or to re-fly an MS on a mission with a similar science payload to reduce training time, but this was yet to be

STS-78

PS Favier prepares a sample for the Advanced Gradient Heating Facility while wearing instruments that measure upper-body movement. In a typical science scene aboard the Spacelab Long Module, several experiments are being performed at the same time. MS Helms and commander Henricks work in the background, while in the foreground MS Linnehan tests his muscle response with the Handgrip Dynamometer

fully implemented given the frequent, real-time changes to the Shuttle manifest. On this flight, the crew worked a single shift.

During the mission, the longest flight of the Shuttle to date, five space agencies and research scientists from more than ten countries participated in the 40 ex­periments flown on LMS. The experiments were grouped into life sciences and materials sciences research. The life sciences experiments included research into human physiology and space biology, while the materials sciences experiments encompassed basic fluid physics, advanced semi-conductor and metal alloy materials processing, and medical research into protein crystal growth. The mission also expanded the use of telescience, to the point where four locations in Europe and four remote locations in the US were utilised by investigators involved in the mission. This was a demonstration of the way science activities were being planned for ISS opera­tions. Video-imaging was also valuable to assist the crew in completing some of the in­flight maintenance procedures required during the flight.

Whereas previous life sciences investigations had focused on the changes in the microgravity environment on the human body, those on STS-78 examined why such changes occurred. There were extensive studies of sleep cycles, circadian rhythms and task performance in microgravity, as well as studies into bone and muscle loss in space. Biopsy tissue samples were taken both before and after flight to record changes from one-G to microgravity and then back again.

Columbia’s RCS engines were pulsed as a test to try boosting the vehicle’s altitude without disturbing the delicate instruments in the Spacelab module. This was in preparation for the next Hubble servicing mission (STS-82), in which the space telescope’s orbit would need to be raised without damaging its fragile solar arrays.

Milestones

190th manned space flight 108th US manned space flight 78th Shuttle mission 20th flight of Columbia

13th flight of Spacelab Long Module configuration 8th EDO flight

New Shuttle flight duration record

1st live downlink during orbiter ascent and descent

Henricks celebrates his 44th birthday in space (5 Jul)

STS-96

Int. Designation

1999-030A

Launched

27 May 1999

Launch Site

Pad 39B, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Landed

6 June 1999

Landing Site

Runway 15, Shuttle Landing Facility, KSC, Florida

Launch Vehicle

OV-103 Discovery/ET – 100/SRB BI-100/SSME #1 2047;

#2 0251; #3 2049

Duration

9 days 19 hrs 13 min 57 sec

Call sign

Discovery

Objective

ISS assembly flight 2A.1; logistics mission

Flight Crew

ROMINGER, Kent Vernon, 42, USN, commander, 4th mission Previous missions: STS-73 (1995); STS-80 (1996); STS-85 (1997)

HUSBAND, Rick Douglas, 41, USAF, pilot

JERNIGAN, Tamara Elizabeth, 40, civilian, mission specialist 1, 5th mission Previous missions: STS-40 (1991); STS-52 (1992); STS-67 (1995); STS-80 (1996) OCHOA, Ellen Lauri, 41, civilian, mission specialist 2, 3rd mission Previous missions: STS-56 (1993); STS-66 (1994)

BARRY, Daniel Thomas, 45, civilian, mission specialist 3, 2nd mission Previous mission: STS-72 (1996)

PAYETTE, Julie, 35, civilian, Canadian, mission specialist 4 TOKAREV, Valery Ivanovich, 46, Russian Air Force, mission specialist 5

Flight Log

This mission was the first logistics flight to the station in preparation for the arrival of the Russian Service Module Zvezda (“Star”) scheduled for later in 1999. Due to weight limitations on the previous STS-88 mission, not all the logistics could be taken to the station in one go. STS-96 was originally planned for later in the year, after STS-93 had deployed the Chandra X-ray telescope, but early in 1999 there were problems in the circuitry boards on Chandra which needed to be replaced, forcing the launch to be delayed. In early May, weather damage to the ET intended for STS-96 resulted in further delays for repairs. With the Russian Service Module also being delayed, further ISS Shuttle missions and the arrival of the first resident crew were put back until 2000. This meant there would be a long gap in ISS-related missions between STS-88 and support missions for the first resident crew in 2000. This gap was filled only with the STS-96 logistics mission.

After the STS-96 stack was returned to the VAB for ET tank repairs, during which 460 critical divots out of a total of 650 divots in the ET outer foam were

STS-96

On board the Zarya module, astronauts Julie Payette (top) and Ellen Ochoa handle supplies being moved over from the docked Shuttle Discovery

repaired, the only other concern prior to launch was when a sail-boarder ventured into the SRB recovery zone. Once that was removed, the launch proceeded smoothly. Two days after launch, Discovery completed the first docking with ISS. The Shuttle remained docked to ISS for 138 hours, during which members of the crew spent over 79 hours inside the station and 7 hours 55 minutes hours outside during the mission’s only EVA. During the 28 May EVA, Jernigan (EV1) and Barry (EV2) transferred the US-built Orbital Transfer Device crane and elements of the Russian Strela crane from the cargo bay of Discovery to their locations on the exterior of the station. They also installed EVA foot restraints that could accommodate either American or Russian EVA footwear and three bags of tools and handrails for future assembly operations. An insulation cover was placed over a trunnion pin on Unity, they inspected one of

two Early Communication Systems (Е-Com) antennas on Unity, and finally photo- documented the exterior paint surfaces of both modules.

Upon entering the station, the crew were concerned over the quality of air circulation inside Zarya, but this was solved by changing the orientation of panel doors that were interrupting the flow of air around the station. Eighteen battery recharge controllers were replaced in Zarya and mufflers were installed over fans inside the FGB to reduce noise levels in the module. The crew also transferred over 1,618 kg of logistics across to the ISS, including clothing, sleeping bags, spare parts, medical equipment and 318 litres of water. They also installed the first of a series of strain gauges, which would be important as the station expanded to record the stress on docking interfaces, and cleaned filters and checked smoke detectors. Transferred in the opposite direction was 90 kg of equipment (198 items), which was moved back into Discovery for the return to Earth.

The day before undocking, the RCS on Discovery were pulsed 17 times to boost the station’s orbit slightly, pending the arrival of the next Shuttle (which turned out to be a year later). Discovery was undocked from ISS on 4 June and after flying two circuits around the station for photo-documentation, the crew prepared for the return to Earth. One of their last tasks prior to landing was the release of a small reflective satellite, which would be a target for student observations around the world.

Milestones

212th manned space flight

124th US manned space flight

94th Shuttle mission

28th flight of Discovery

2nd Shuttle ISS mission

1st Discovery ISS mission

1st Shuttle mission to dock with ISS

Подпись:

Подпись: STS-93
Подпись: 1999-040A 23 July 1999 Pad 39B, Kennedy Space Center, Florida 27 July 1999 Runway 33, Shuttle Landing Facility, KSC, Florida OV-102 Columbia/ET-099/SRB BI-097/SSME #1 2012; #2 2031; #3 2019 4 days 02 hrs 49 min 37 sec Columbia Deployment of Chandra X-Ray Observatory by IUS-27

Flight Crew

COLLINS, Eileen Marie, 42, USAF, commander, 3rd mission Previous missions: STS-63 (1995); STS-84 (1997)

ASHBY, Jeffrey Shears, 45, USN, pilot

COLEMAN, Catherine Grace (“Cady”), 38, USAF, mission specialist 1,

2nd mission

Previous mission: STS-73 (1995)

HAWLEY, Steven Alan, 47, civilian, mission specialist 2, 5th mission Previous missions: STS 41-D (1984); STS 61-C (1986); STS-31 (1990);

STS-87 (1997)

TOGNINI, Michel Ange Charles, 49, French Air Force, mission specialist 3, 2nd mission

Previous mission: Soyuz TM15 (1992)

Flight Log

If the launch of STS-93 had occurred on time on 20 July, Eileen Collins, the first female commander of a US space mission, could have taken Columbia to orbit on the 30th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing (whose Command Module was also called Columbia). However, the launch was terminated at the T — 7 second mark when more than double the permitted amount of hydrogen was detected in the aft engine compartment of the orbiter. System engineers in the firing room at KSC noted the indication and manually cut off the ground launch sequencers less than a second before SSME ignition. Post-abort evaluation determined that the reading was false. The next launch attempt, on 22 July, was scrubbed due to adverse weather conditions at KSC, but the launch attempt on 23 July was successful, the only delay being a communications problem with Columbia during the countdown which forced a seven minute slip in the launch time.

STS-96

Eileen Collins, the first female Shuttle commander and first female commander of an American mission, looks over a checklist at the commander’s station on the forward flight deck of Columbia during FD 1

Five seconds after leaving the pad, flight controllers noted a voltage drop in one of the electrical buses on the Columbia. As a result of the drop in voltage, one of two redundant main engine controllers on two of the three SSME (centre and right position) shut down. But the others performed nominally, supporting the climb to orbit. However, the orbit attained was 11.2 km lower than planned due to the premature cut-off of the SSME. This was later traced to a hydrogen leak in the #3 main engine nozzle, caused by the loss of an LO pin from the main injector during engine ignition. This had struck the hot wall of the nozzle and ruptured three LH coolant tubes.

Columbia’s manoeuvring engines were used subsequently to raise the orbit to its proper altitude, allowing the deployment of the primary payload into its desired orbit. The Chandra X-Ray Observatory (formerly known as the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysical Facility, or AXAF) was successfully deployed using its two-stage IUS on FD 1. The IUS propelled the observatory into an operational orbit of approxi­mately 10,000 x 140,000 km – at its farthest, almost one-third of the way to the Moon – in an orbital period of about 64 hours. This would permit the telescope to make 55 hours of uninterrupted observations each orbit. The primary mission of Chandra was scheduled to last five years through to 2004, although this was subsequently extended to ten years of operational activity until 2009.

During the remainder of the mission, secondary payloads and experiments were activated. These included the South-Western UV Imaging System (SWUIS) used to obtain UV imagery of Earth, the Moon, Mercury, Venus and Jupiter. The crew monitored several plant growth experiments and collected data from a biological cell culture experiment. They also evaluated the Treadmill Vibration Information System, which measured vibrations and the changes in microgravity levels caused by on-orbit exercise periods. This was important for gathering data to ensure that exercise periods on ISS did not disrupt delicate instruments and experiments. The crew also evaluated high-definition TV equipment for future use on both the Shuttle and ISS, which conformed to the latest industry standards for TV products. Tognini, who visited the Mir space station in 1992, spoke over the radio with his colleague and fellow countryman Jean-Pierre Haignere, who was on the fifth of his six-month stay on the Russian Mir space station. Collins and Ashby also evaluated the Portable In-flight Landing Operations Trainer (PILOT), which utilised a laptop computer, simulation software and a joystick combination to provide refresher and skills train­ing to the commander and pilot prior to performing the actual landing.

Milestones

213th manned space flight 125th US manned space flight 95th Shuttle mission 26th flight of Columbia

1st female Shuttle commander and 1st US female crew commander (Collins) Shortest scheduled flight since 1990

Int. Designation

N/A (launched on STS-111)

Launched

5 June 2002

Launch Site

Pad 39A, Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Landed

7 December 2002 (aboard STS-113)

Landing Site

Shuttle Landing Facility, KSC, Florida

Launch Vehicle

STS-111

Duration

184 days 22hrs 14 min 23 sec

Call sign

Freget (Frigate)

Objective

ISS-5 expedition programme

Flight Crew

KORZUN, Valery Nikolayevich, 49, Russian Air Force, ISS-5 and Soyuz

commander, 2nd mission

Previous mission: Soyuz TM24 (1996)

WHITSON, Peggy Annette, 42, civilian, ISS-5 science officer TRESCHEV, Sergei Vladimiriovich, 43, civilian, Russian ISS-5 flight engineer

Flight Log

The fifth expedition to the ISS featured a science programme of 24 American and 29 Russian experiments. Whitson had the added privilege of performing an experiment during her mission on ISS for which she was principle investigator. The renal stone experiment was a research programme to study the possible formation of kidney stones during prolonged space flight. Whitson kept regular logs of her food intake and took a regular course of tablets of either potassium citrate or a placebo. By mid-July, the ESA glove box facility had been activated, but communication problems with the new unit meant that Whitson had to forego regular daily exercises for a couple of days while the problems were resolved.

During the residency, the crew received two Progress re-supply craft. In late June, Progress M1-8 was replaced by Progress M46, which delivered 2,580 kg of cargo for the crew and 825 kg of fuel. Three months later, Progress M1-9 replaced the M46 ferry and brought over 2,600 kg of cargo, including equipment for the ESA Odessa science programme in November. These regular re-supply flights were the lifeline of the station’s main crew, supplementing the heavy lift capability of the Shuttle, and serving as an orbital refuse collection service once the new cargo had been unpacked.

August was mainly focused on EVAs. The first (16 Aug for 4 hours 25 minutes) saw Whitson and her commander start late due to a caution and warning signal that indicated a fault on their Orlan pressure suits. Recycling the pre-EVA operations to fix the problem meant that the EVA started 1 hour and 43 minutes late. The two crew members used the Strela boom to access the work area to place six (of an eventual 23)

ISS EO-5

Cosmonaut Sergei Treshchev, ISS-5 flight engineer, holds a special pallet containing various tools used for orbital repairs and DIY aboard the station

micrometeoroid protection panels on the Zvezda module. Due to the late start, the installation of a Kromka detector, and the gathering of samples of thruster residue on the surface of Zvezda caused by other thrusters on the module, would be rescheduled for later EVAs. The second excursion (26 Aug for 5 hours 21 minutes) was also delayed 27 minutes, this time by a small leak from the pressure seals between Zvezda transfer compartments and where Pirs was docked to it. Recycling the hatch valves seemed to solve the problem. The cosmonauts set up TV cameras to record their activities, as well as an external Japanese experiment for specialists back in Japan. They also deployed the Kromka-2 deflector plate evaluator and retrieved an earlier plate to be returned to Earth for analysis, as well as deploying the final two ham radio antennas.

The ISS-5 crew received the STS-112 Shuttle crew in October (who delivered the S1 Truss), as well as the fourth visiting crew in the new spacecraft Soyuz TMA in November. After just over a week aboard the station, the visiting crew departed in the older TM34, marking the final re-entry and landing of that variant of the venerable Soyuz. Shortly after the departure of the visiting crew, STS-113 arrived with the replacement ISS-6 resident crew, returning home with the ISS-5 crew.

During their residency, the ISS-5 crew encountered and overcame a number of equipment problems, and conducted repairs and maintenance. Whitson wrote a series of journals about life and work on board ISS that were posted on the NASA web site and provided a fascinating insight into life aboard the station. On 16 September, NASA designated her the first NASA science officer, a designation that would be assigned to an American member of each crew from now on. She later wrote that the title was fine, apart from the number of emails she had received from friends all likening her to Mr. Spock, the science officer of the USS Enterprise in the original Star Trek.

Milestones

5th ISS resident crew

4th ISS EO crew to be launched by Shuttle 1st designated NASA science officer (Whitson)

The Next Steps

With the successful flight of STS-114 in July 2005 and the second Return-to-Flight mission of STS-121 in July 2006, NASA revised the Shuttle manifest pending the retirement of the vehicle in 2010. There is also another servicing mission planned for the Hubble Space Telescope in 2008.

Table 9.1. ISS Assembly Manifest

Launch

Date

Assembly

Flight

Launch

Vehicle

Element(s)

2006 Dec 14

12A

Discovery

STS-116

P5 Truss

SpaceHab single module Integrated Cargo Carrier (ICC)

2007 Feb 22

13A

Atlantis

STS-117

S3/S4 Truss with Photovoltaic Radiator 3rd set of solar arrays and batteries

2007 May 1

ATV1

Ariane 5

European Automated Transfer Vehicle

2007 Jun 11

13A.1

Endeavour

STS-118

SpaceHab single module S5 Truss

External Stowage Platform 3 (ESP 3)

2007 Aug 9

10A

Atlantis

STS-120

Node 2

Sidewall – Power and Data Grapple Fixture (PGDF)

2007 Oct

1E

Shuttle

STS-122

Columbus European laboratory Multi-Purpose Experiment Support Structure – Non-Deployable (MPESS-ND)

2007 Dec

1J/A

Shuttle

Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module – Pressurised Section (ELM-PS)

Spacelab Pallet – Deployable 1 (SLP-D1) with Canadian Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator, Dextre

2008 Feb

1J

Shuttle

Kibo Japanese Experiment Module – Pressurised Module (JEM-PM)

Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEM RMS)

2008 Jun

15A

Shuttle

STS-119

S6 Truss

Fourth set of solar arrays and batteries

2008 Aug

ULF2

Shuttle

Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM)

2008 Oct

2J/A

Shuttle

Kibo Japanese Experiment Module Exposed Facility (JEM EF)

Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module – Exposed Section (ELM-ES)

Spacelab Pallet – Deployable 2 (SLP-D2)

Dec 2008

3R

Proton

Multipurpose Laboratory Module with

European Robotic Arm (ERA)

Table 9.1 (cont.)

Launch

Assembly

Launch

Element(s)

Date

Flight

Vehicle

2009 Jan

17A

Shuttle

Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) Lightweight Multi-Purpose Experiment Support Structure Carrier (LMC)

Three crew quarters, galley, second treadmill (TVIS2)

Crew Health Care System (CHeCS 2)

Establish Six Person Crew Capability

2009 Feb

HTV-1

H-IIA

Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle

2009 April

ULF3

Shuttle

EXPRESS Logistics Carrier 1 (ELC 1) EXPRESS Logistics Carrier 2 (eLC 2)

2009 July

19A

Shuttle

Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) Lightweight Multi-Purpose Experiment Support Structure Carrier (LMC)

2009 Oct

ULF4

Shuttle

EXPRESS Logistics Carrier 3 (ELC 3) EXPRESS Logistics Carrier 4 (ELC 4)

2010 Jan

20A

Shuttle

Node 3 with Cupola

2010 July

ULF5

Shuttle

EXPRESS Logistics Carrier 5 (ELC 5) EXPRESS Logistics Carrier 1 (eLC 1)

ISS Assembly Complete

Under Review

9R

Proton

Research Module

Dates listed are subject to change. There will continue to be additional Progress and Soyuz flights for crew transport, logistics and re-supply.

Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006

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

Acknowledgements

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.

Foreword

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

Foreword

Offician portrait of Al Worden for Apollo 15

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.

Foreword

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.’’

PRAXIS LOG OF MANNED SPACEFLIGHT – A USER’S GUIDE

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.