Category Manned Spaceflight Log II—2006-2012

Studies, plans, and discussions on what exactly would follow the Space Shuttle had circulated for years before the decision was finally made to retire the vehicles following the loss of Columbia in 2003. During these years the growth of commer­cial interest in developing a new launch system and spacecraft varied considerably but recently there have been a number of companies who have expressed interest in creating an American launch and crew/cargo transport system independent of NASA.

By 2010, in an effort to replace the Space Shuttle program for the transportation of crews and/or cargo to the ISS, NASA funded Space Act Agree­ments with five companies. The aim was to develop potential capabilities for launching American astronauts and supporting logistics into space from launch sites within the United States. A sixth company, ATK-EADS, was included as an unsolicited and unfunded proposal in May 2012. The development of a new American crew vehicle is conducted under NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) Program.

The six were

• Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX)

• Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital)

• Blue Origin

• ATK-EADS

• Sierra Nevada Corporation, and

• The Boeing Company.

In addition, the American space agency signed agreements with Alliant Technologies Inc., Excalibur Almaz Inc., and United Launch Alliance, LLC for the exchange of technical information and expertise.

Flight crew

KALERI, Aleksandr Yuriyevich, 54, civilian, RSA Soyuz TMA-M commander, ISS flight engineer, fifth mission

Previous missions-. Soyuz TM-14 (1992), Soyuz TM-24 (1996), Soyuz ТМ-30/ Mir-28 (2000), Soyuz TMA-3 (2003)

SKRIPOCHKA, Oleg Ivanovich, 40, civilian, RSA Soyuz TMA-M flight engineer, ISS flight engineer

KELLY, Scott Joseph, 46, USN, NASA ISS-25 flight engineer; ISS-26 commander, Soyuz TM-M flight engineer, third mission Previous missions-. STS-103 (1999), STS-118 (2007)

Flight log

On October 8, 2010 (Moscow time), a new, modified Soyuz TMA-M was launched on its first mission with a three-man crew. It docked with ISS at Poisk on October 10. Such was the confidence in the system and the internal system upgrades of Soyuz, an unmanned TMA-M mission was deemed unnecessary, although several systems had been test-flown on earlier unmanned Progress missions.

In command of the new vehicle was veteran Russian civilian engineer cosmonaut Alexander Kaleri, who had already logged 610 days in space on his three flights to Mir and an earlier mission to the ISS. He had worked on the development of the TMA-M upgrades which enabled him to take the coveted command of the inaugural mission. With him were rookie cosmonaut Oleg Skripochka and veteran American Space Shuttle commander Scott Kelly, who became the first NASA pilot-astronaut to serve on an ISS residency crew since Ken Bowersox in 2003.

The mission of TMA-M was, of course, to transport the next resident crew to and from the station and serve as a rescue vehicle should it be required, but this was also an important test flight of a new vehicle which would be the mainstay of Russian and ISS manned operations for some years to come. It was imperative that all went well in this maiden flight.

The external appearance of TMA-M was similar to earlier versions of the craft; the upgrades were mainly within the avionics of the spacecraft. A new, lighter, digital command and control system freed up mass to allow an increase in payload capacity by 1541b (69.85 kg). The old Argon analog computer system, used since 1974, was finally upgraded to the new TSVM-101 system, which meant that just one qualified pilot could now fly Soyuz rather than having two fully trained crew members, saving on training time. One-person Soyuz rescue (return) capability had been available for some years, of course, though it had never been called upon in flight.

After 45 days working as part of the ISS-25 crew, Kelly assumed command of the station on November 24, beginning the ISS-26 residency. For the next three weeks, they continued the science and maintenance programs as a three-person crew while awaiting the arrival of their colleagues on TMA-20. The new crew, who would take over as ISS-27 in the spring, arrived on December 17 and docked with the Rassvet module.

The station was reboosted on December 22, using the eight thrusters of the Progress M-07M for 21 minutes 11 seconds to raise the orbit of the complex by 2.6 miles (4.18 km) to 219 miles (352.37 km) in preparation for the arrival of the second Japanese unmanned resupply craft, HTV-2. On Christmas Eve, Skripochka celebrated his 41st birthday and the crew had a day off on Christmas Day. The closing days of the year were spent on a significant amount of preparation work for 2011 docking and joint flight operations, which would also see the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

The New Year arrived with shocking news. On January 8, U. S. Congress­woman Gabrielle Gifford was shot at a political rally in Tucson, Arizona. Six other people, including a 9-year-old girl, were fatally wounded. Gifford is the sister-in-law of Scott Kelly and her husband, Kelly’s twin brother Mark, was due to command STS-134. That mission was originally scheduled to fly to the station during March while Scott was aboard the station, making for a historic meeting in orbit. In memory of the victims one minute’s silence was held aboard the station and across the United States on January 10. It was also announced that proces­sing and payload delays would result in the STS-134 mission being postponed until April. The opportunity for the two brothers to meet aboard the space station was lost.

On January 21, Kondratyev and Skripochka conducted a Russian segment EVA (5h 23 min) from Pirs, installing an antenna on Zvezda as part of the Russian Radio Telescope System for Information Transfer which would allow radio technicians to send large files at 100 megacycles per second from computers on the station to Earth. They also removed a failed generator on the Expre-R camera from Zvezda and finally installed the docking camera on the outside of Rassvet.

Following the EVA, things became busier at the station, with operations to restock the station accelerating in lieu of the retirement of the Shuttle later in 2011. On January 24, Progress M-08M was undocked and this was soon followed by the arrival of the second Japanese HTV unmanned resupply craft, Kounotori 2 (“White Stork”). The HTV was grappled by Canadarm2 on January 27 and was initially attached to the nadir port on Harmony. The crew entered the module for the first time, wearing masks as a safety precaution for a new vehicle, on January 28. On board the HTV were 6,4551b (2,927.98 kg) of cargo. On January 30, Progress M-09M docked with the Pirs module bringing a further three tons of supplies. On February 4, another anniversary was marked in the program as Zarya, the original ISS element, completed 70,000 orbits of Earth since its launch on November 20, 1998.

A second EVA (February 16, 4h 5 min) by Kondratyev and Skripochka continued the installation of exterior experiments outside Zvezda and the retrieval of panels of exposed materials. The Japanese HTV was relocated from the nadir port of Harmony to the module’s zenith port on February 18 to make room for the forthcoming docking of Discovery (STS-133). Less than a week later, on

February 24, the second European unmanned resupply craft Johannes Kepler (ATV-2) docked with Zvezda’s aft port with a further 3,5001b (1,587.60 kg) of cargo aboard. While docked with the station for the next three months, it was planned to use the ATV for station reboost. This would also give the crew time to unload the supplies and utilize the extra volume, before filling it with unwanted material prior to undocking for destructive burn-up in the atmosphere.

Shuttle Discovery, flying STS-133, was the next arrival at the station, docking with the PMA-2 of Harmony on February 26 to deliver more cargo. The mission would also transfer the former MPLM Leonardo—now designated the Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM)—and the ExPRESS Logistic Carrier-4 (ELC-4) across to the station. The docking of Discovery created a unique moment in ISS history, as for the first time all the current resupply craft were docked with the space station—Soyuz, Progress, ATV, HTV, and the Space Shuttle. The ISS was at this point the biggest it had ever been. Unfortunately, a fly-around of one of the Soyuz spacecraft to photograph the historic linkup was not possible. The Rus­sians were rightly cautious in that the next planned departure vehicle—Soyuz TMA-M—was the inaugural flight of the vehicle and it was deemed too risky to violate safety protocols. It was hoped that an opportunity would arise for such a unique photograph before the Shuttle retired later in the summer. Discovery undocked on March 7.

On March 11, Kounotori was relocated again from the zenith side of Harmony back to the nadir side of the module. That same day, an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and tsunami struck northern Japan. The Tsukuba Flight Control Center, some 30 miles (48.27 km) northeast of Tokyo, was shut down for 3 days. The center suffered a little damage but fortunately no casualties. Communication links with Houston were also disrupted, reducing regular operations on Kibo. Three JAXA controllers flew to the United States to establish temporary Kibo control in Houston. Until the communications finks could be fully restored, the HTV could not be unberthed, delaying its departure from the station. In the interim, the Japanese vehicle continued to be packed with additional unwanted material and trash. The HTV departed from ISS for its destructive atmospheric reentry on March 28.

On March 14, Kondratyev assumed command of the station for the ISS-27 phase from Kelly, effectively ending the ISS-26 prime residency after 110 days. Two days later, Soyuz TMA-M undocked from the ISS, landing later the same day on the snowy steppes of Kazakhstan. The Descent Module landed on its side and was dragged about 75 feet (22.86 m) by its recovery parachute. Despite this, it was a highly successful initial flight for the new vehicle.

Milestones

278th manned space flight 113th Russian manned space flight 106 th manned Soyuz flight 1st Soyuz TM-M mission 24th ISS Soyuz mission (24S)

25/26th ISS resident crew

Skripochka celebrate his 41st birthday (December 24)

First time all main station resupply craft are docked with the ISS at same time—Soyuz, Progress, Shuttle, ATY, and HTV

SpaceX has developed its Dragon (cargo) vehicle to launch on their Falcon 9 launch vehicle. The company is also developing a manned version of the same vehicle. An unmanned Dragon cargo vehicle was successfully flown to the ISS in 2012, becoming the first commercial vehicle to attach itself to the ISS. The Dragon spacecraft can handle both pressurized (up to 14 m3 or 55 ft3) and unpressurized (up to 10 m3 or 39 ft3) payloads in a fully recoverable capsule with a combined capsule and support trunk up-mass of 2,7201b (6,000 kg) or 1,3601b (3,000 kg) for the down-mass of only the capsule. It has an impressive mission duration capabil­ity of between one week and two years. The first manned flight is planned for 2015 and the vehicle is designed to carry up to seven astronauts on a wide variety of missions.

Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital)

Orbital is developing an unmanned cargo vehicle called Cygnus that will be launched on an Antares launch vehicle. This will be an advanced maneuvering spacecraft designed to support cargo delivery services and is planned to fly eight missions over a 2yr period (currently 2013 to 2015), delivering approximately 20,000 kg (44,000 lb) of cargo to the ISS and then disposing of unwanted waste in a destructive reentry. Using proven technology, the vehicle comprises a common service module and a pressurized cargo module. The pressurized module is based on the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module developed by Thales Alenia Space.

On the morning of April 12, 1961, a Soviet pilot named Yuri Gagarin sat strapped to an ejection seat in the cockpit of his craft awaiting the start of his next flight. As a serving air force officer there was nothing strange about that, except that the “craft” was a spacecraft, not an aircraft, and Gagarin was lying on his back, not sitting upright in the normal flying position. One other significant difference in his pending flight was that Gagarin was sitting on a rocket standing on a launchpad instead of in a military jet on the end of a runway. It was true that Gagarin was about to fly into the atmosphere once more, but not for long. Within minutes of leaving the launchpad he was passing through the upper reaches of the planet’s atmosphere, where blue skies turn black and “air” becomes “space”, pioneering a new mode of transport, that of manned space flight.

Since that day, small steps and giant strides have been made in the exploration of space, be it by automated satellites, space probes, or crewed

D. J. Shayler and M. D. Shayler, Manned Spaceflight LogII—2006—2012, Springer Praxis Books 158, DOl 10.1007/978-1-4614-4577-7_1, © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

vehicles. Each and every mission adds to the database of experience, whether successful or not. There had been arguments for and against human space explora­tion even before Gagarin left the pad. Over the decades, these have expanded to include debates on the militarization of space; on the importance of scientific objec­tives; the direction of future space efforts and how they could be financed; the drain on science and unmanned programs to fund manned activities; and whether the budget should be spent on space at all when there are so many problems here on Earth. These arguments will certainly continue for many decades to come, counter­ing the natural global evolution of the program, but on the 50th anniversary of Gagarin’s mission (April 2011), the time was right to take stock and review what had been achieved in human space flight, how we had arrived there, and where to go in the future.

There have been countless volumes over the previous six decades or so that have provided an exhaustive narrative of various manned space flight programs, the hardware, operations, and results. The basic records of these missions were recorded in the earlier edition of this log (Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961­2006, Tim Fumiss and David J. Shayler with Michael D. Shayler, Springer-Praxis 2007) providing both a handy reference in its own right, and a companion volume to the various titles that examined each program and mission in more detail.

Where blue skies turn black 3

In all space flights, there are three phases that are common to each mission. Though the profile, objectives, and even the hardware changes, the sequence remains the same for human missions—launch, inflight, and landing.

Launch sites

There have only been three launch sites used to send humans into orbit since 1961, one each in the Soviet Union, the United States, and China. In addition, Edwards

Air Force Base in California was the home of the X-15 program from which a series of “astro-flights” were conducted in the 1960s. Nearby Mojave Airport was the departure point for the 2004 SpaceShipOne flights. Despite plans, there were no launches of military Manned Orbiting Laboratory missions in the 1960s, nor classi­fied Shuttle missions during the 1980s, from the Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6, also known as “Slick-6”) in California.

The first launch of a manned orbital space flight, on April 12, 1961, was from Pad 1 at Site 5 at the huge Baikonur Cosmodrome, in what was Soviet Central Asia (now known as the Republic of Kazakhstan). All subsequent Soviet/Russian manned launches have taken place from the same cosmodrome, though a few have used Pad 31 at Site 6.

Similarly, all American manned space flights have begun from the extensive launch complex at Cape Canaveral in Florida. The early missions launched from Pad 5 (used for the suborbital Mercury-Redstone launches), 14 (Mercury Atlas), 19 (Gemini Titan), or 34 (Apollo Saturn IB), with the Pad A or В sites at Launch Complex 39 serving as the launch site for all Apollo Saturn V and Skylab/ASTP Saturn IB missions. The LC-39 pads were subsequently converted to launch all 135 Shuttle missions. As changes take place once more in Florida to remove Shuttle-related launch systems and install facilities for the next generation of U. S. launch vehicles, these historic pads will be used to place new American vehicles into orbit. Across the world in China, the third launch site for manned spacecraft is located in Jiuquan and is used to support the launch of Shenzhou missions.

Using redirected lunar hardware, the Skylab space station became the first (and, to date, only) American domestic space station, another example of the long, compli­cated, and troubled American space station history within both NASA and the USAF. The military-orientated Manned Orbiting Laboratory program (utilizing a variant of the NASA Gemini spacecraft for crew transport) was canceled in 1969 after six expensive years of development and only one unmanned test flight. The NASA “civilian” space station program began quietly in the early 1960s, discard­ing the various grand plans revealed in the 1950s for giant stations circling the Earth and instead focusing upon creating payloads of scientific hardware flown on adapted Apollo spacecraft. These would supplement, but not replace, the lunar effort. Preliminary studies both within NASA and at contractor level revealed that the Apollo Command and Service Module, the Lunar Module, the Saturn family of launch vehicles, and the supportive hardware had the flexibility and potential to complete far wider missions than just sending men to the Moon for short visits to set up scientific instruments, return a few boxes of Moon rock, and plant a flag.

These ideas were soon identified as Apollo Extension (or Apollo X) missions. They were an obvious continuation to the basic lunar profile missions, which

could be flown throughout the late 1960s and into the 1970s or beyond. However, as the effort intensified to develop the hardware required to reach the Moon, hopefully before the Soviets, so too did the administrative and political pressure not to divert substantial funds away from the main Apollo lunar program. Any new program suggestions suffered accordingly. Indeed, there was so much focus on simply getting the men to the Moon and safely home that even the science intended to be conducted on the Moon was reduced to almost nothing for the first landing. This was of course partly because of the immense challenge in simply achieving the landing in the first place and a desire not to overcomplicate the first attempt. Any expansion of science could be deferred to later missions once the commitment to reach the Moon by 1970 (and beat the Soviets) had been achieved.

The studies continued, however, and in an attempt to mask their appearance as a “new start” the programs were restructured. In 1966, Apollo X and all its connotations were gathered under a new program branch, identified as the Apollo Applications Program (AAP) Office. The primary focus of this effort centered upon using spent Saturn launch vehicle stages fitted out in space as rudimentary space laboratories. There were other missions proposed, but the Orbital Workshop (OWS) concept was the flagship of the AAP program. The rocket stage intended

Early designs from the Apollo X studies.

for use as the station would be fueled and used during the launch. Once in orbit and empty, it would be decontaminated by the crew, who would arrive in a CSM ferry craft. This became known as the “wet” workshop design. NASA had to be careful to avoid promoting the space station program as a new start because of the possible threat to the budget allocation for the mainline Apollo effort. The
way round this was to identify the “new program” (that was not officially new) as one that was simply applying the hardware and skills of Apollo to a range of further missions beyond the original remit.

Most of these missions were expected to fly in Earth orbit in between the lunar missions. After the initial Apollo landing missions (probably four or five), AAP missions to lunar orbit would follow, creating an OWS there followed by 14-day missions to the surface, hopefully setting up a small research base and extended surface expeditions. Unfortunately, concerns over the cost of the main­line Apollo and the decline in both interest and support for going to the Moon by both politicians and the public signaled the end of extensive AAP operations.

By the end of 1969, the lunar landing by Apollo had indeed been accomplished, twice, but only one AAP space station remained on the manifest. Three manned missions were planned, but it would not become the primary focus until after the Apollo missions to the Moon were completed. By early 1970, AAP had been renamed Skylab and the “wet” workshop design had also changed. Now, the laboratory would be launched on a two-stage Saturn V, with the third stage pre-fitted out as a fully equipped “dry”, or unfueled, workshop. The three teams of astronauts were planned to fly 28, 56, and 56-day missions during 1973.

Skylab 1, the unmanned laboratory, was launched in May 1973 and was almost lost during the attempt, with one of the solar power arrays and micro­meteorite shields being ripped off by aerodynamic stress. Almost limping to orbit, the problems in cooling and powering up the station caused the first mission to be delayed to give NASA time to develop plans and hardware to recover the station to as near planned operating levels as possible. The success of the first and second crews in deploying the remaining array and installing protective solar shades saved Skylab, allowing a full three-mission program to be completed. The missions set new endurance records of 28 days, 59 days, and an impressive 84 days (both instead of the planned 56), rendering a potential 21-day fourth visiting mission unnecessary. The Skylab teams gained significant experience and gathered impor­tant results from Earth observations, solar studies, medical investigations, and a wide range of other experiments and research studies in materials processing, astronomy, and education.

Unfortunately, the fully functional backup laboratory, “Skylab B”, was not launched due to budget restrictions. Instead, the flight-ready module was sent to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D. C. for public display. To this day, former astronauts who could have flown to and lived in the station are reluctant to visit the display, recalling lost opportunities. Other unflown Apollo Saturn hardware from the canceled lunar missions was allocated to the Johnson, Marshall, and Kennedy Space Centers as museum pieces. This was very disap­pointing, not only for those who had built the vehicles and those who had hoped to fly on them, but also for those who had negotiated the funding to pay for them under the Apollo program. Instead they remained on the ground, stark reminders of what might have been.

Following Skylab, the only remaining American mission firmly on the launch manifest was the docking mission with a Soviet Soyuz, which was designated the

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. This one-off mission occurred in the summer of 1975, when Apollo “18” rendezvoused and docked with Soyuz 19. The ensuing handshake in space between astronauts and cosmonauts as they opened the con­necting hatches for the first time featured in the headlines around the world; a demonstration of growing detente between the two superpowers both on Earth and in space.

The ASTP had evolved from talks between representatives of the American and Soviet space programs in the late 1960s and early 1970s, with agreements on the exchange of data on both manned and unmanned missions. In early plans, it was suggested that an American Apollo might dock with a Soviet Salyut space station crewed by Soyuz cosmonauts. This was soon dismissed as impractical by the Soviets, since Salyut did not then have two docking ports. What was not revealed at the time was that a second-generation Salyut station was in develop­ment which did indeed feature two docking ports, a design which would not be revealed until later in the decade. Following the ASTP mission, talks continued for some years and included the possibility of docking a Shuttle orbiter to one of these, now revealed, second-generation Salyuts. Unfortunately, the political climate worsened, so talks on joint manned missions were abandoned for over a decade.

The retirement of the Shuttle in 2011 left something of a void. While any operational experience can be learned from, Shuttle operations will have little application directly to the proposed vehicles that will follow. The Shuttle system and hardware were unique and the new designs have more in common with the Apollo Command and Service Module than Shuttle orbiters. However, many of the lessons learned from the Shuttle-Міг program did have direct application to ISS operations.

For those vehicles which will eventually follow the Shuttle, a whole new learning curve might need to be scaled. By the time the new vehicles fly, those who were around for most of the Shuttle program will probably have retired, losing core experience that, like the Apollo era, will be hard to replace. There is, however, one significant difference between the transition from the Apollo era to the Shuttle era and the one from the Shuttle era to whatever replaces it.

In the 1970s, relatively few former astronauts moved to managerial roles in the space agency or the industry. Most of the engineers and managers who were at NASA during Apollo moved on to work on the Shuttle program, at least in its early years, bringing with them valued experience. A generation later, things were much different. The industry was much larger, most of the original employees at NASA had retired, and there were far more opportunities for former astronauts to move across to managerial roles, both inside and outside the agency, within the broader space program.

At the end of the Apollo era, many of the veteran astronauts, managers, and engineers decided to leave the program. In contrast, many of those who flew or managed the Shuttle are now in key positions within the space industry, working on a variety of new programs or projects including those contractors developing the Shuttle replacement. With the end of the Shuttle and some years before its replacement arrives, it is likely that more former Shuttle astronauts will retire. It will be interesting to monitor the career path of the ex-Shuttle pilots and mission specialists who climb the corporate ladder or advance in the administration of NASA and leading contractors in the coming decades. In Europe, former ESA astronauts are also beginning to move to higher administrative roles. In contrast, trying to track the progress of cosmonauts after they stop flying was always (and continues to be) difficult. Most of the military cosmonauts retire on a pension,

while the civilian engineers resume work at Energiya until they retire. A few, Uke Alexei Leonov and Vladimir Titov, secured positions in leading Russian corporate businesses.

Former NASA astronauts, including Bob Crippen, Frank Culbertson, Bill Lenoir, Brian O’Connor, Loren Shriver, Dick Truly, and more recently Charles Bolden, Mike Coat, and others have made the transition from the astronaut office to the management side of the agency and then stepped across into industry. Their personal experiences from flying in space have been applied back into the program, but at a much higher level. It will be interesting to monitor whether such moves have a lasting legacy for the future space program.

Living on a planet means “space” is all around us, a fact most people often overlook or are even still unaware of. Standing on “terra firma”, it is easy to forget that this “firm ground” is actually traveling through space on its own journey around the star we know as “sol”, or the Sun. To journey “into space” generally means traveling throughout the atmosphere to a point where you briefly see the blue sky turn black and into a condition where normal aerodynamic control surfaces such as wings, rudder, and ailerons are useless; only rocket engines can provide the impulse to move under a vacuum condition. It is a con­dition controlled by the forces of gravity pulling on objects in perpetual free fall.

The barrier between blue sky and space has been defined at different altitudes above the Earth. For some it is 50 miles (80.45 km); others state 62 miles (or 100 km), while still others claim you are not in space until you are in orbit and you cannot call yourself a true space explorer unless you have completed at least one orbit of Earth. With even more flights to the edge of the defined atmosphere planned, such as the Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo program, so the debate of what is or is not a true flight into space will continue.

There are no “typical” space flights, as each mission is different by objective and flight profile. These profiles are determined by the geographical location of the launch site, the direction (azimuth) of launch, and the particular inclination and the height of the orbit above the planet. This can result, for example, in orbits over the polar caps, or out to a distance of 35,000 km (22,000 miles) which matches the rotation of the planet. This is where many of the communications and weather satellites are located, over the relevant part of the Earth, to maximize their capacity.

Of course, trajectories for leaving Earth orbit add to the complexity of the mission. For the Apollo lunar flights, even reaching for the Moon involved studies of three main trajectories. If the launch vehicle assigned had been large enough, then a direct flight to the Moon and back could have been flown—a profile termed “direct ascent”. As this was beyond the capabilities and funding to meet the 1970 deadline, the Americans chose an alternative route. The second option was to launch elements of the lunar spacecraft on separate, smaller rockets, and then bring the spacecraft together in orbit before continuing out towards the Moon. Called “Earth orbital rendezvous”, this method was far more challenging because it would have meant developing the capability for several on time launches, rendezvous and docking, and proximity operations that would be required to make the method a success. Any delays could seriously have threa­tened President Kennedy’s deadline and fallen behind the expected Soviet competition to the Moon.

The third option was to launch a two-part spacecraft, one of them a separate lander, on one large launch vehicle into Earth orbit. This landing vehicle would then be extracted unmanned from the top of the launch vehicle where it was stored for launch. Once joined up, the combination would be sent to the Moon with a crew of three astronauts and, once in lunar orbit, two of the crew would separate the lander to complete the surface exploration program with the third astronaut remaining in orbit. Creating a lighter vehicle to land on the Moon meant a lighter vehicle to lift off from the surface and a smaller engine required to be able to do so. After rendezvous, the main spacecraft would return to Earth with the crew of three. This system, though still risky, raised questions over whether to proceed and the capability of making various safety decisions through­out the mission. This method was called “lunar orbital rendezvous” and was the method chosen for the American Apollo missions, to great success. To gain the necessary experience in orbital rendezvous, longer duration missions, and space­walking techniques NASA created the two-man Gemini program which completed 10 highly successful manned missions in Earth orbit during 1965 and 1966.

Circumlunar missions (flights around the far side of the Moon without entering orbit and then heading on back to Earth) were flown by unmanned Soviet Zond vehicles to test their lunar capabilities. Although no Soviet manned flights ever flew in competition to Apollo, it is known that the Soviets were devel­oping their own manned lunar program. Initially, cosmonauts would have fol­lowed an Earth orbital rendezvous profile, but in 1964 this was amended to a probable lunar orbital rendezvous profile. Unfortunately, while the Americans chose LOR as the best way to develop Apollo, the argument in Russia was actually over which designers would be the lead bureau rather than which method to follow. Coupled with hardware failures and the success of the Americans, this led the Soviets to cancel their manned lunar program long before any cosmonauts left the launchpad to test the lunar hardware in space.

Since Apollo 17 in 1972, every manned orbital mission to date has been in Earth orbit, either on independent flight profiles or as a docking mission to a space station. Significant experience in orbital rendezvous was achieved by the Americans during the Gemini program (1965-1966) and with the Apollo era mis­sions (1968-1975) but despite several rendezvous with satellites by the Shuttle, actual docking experience for Shuttle crews did not begin until the Shuttle-Mir program of 1995-1998, extending to the ISS assembly missions between 1998 and 2011.

For the Russians, the first manned docking occurred between Soyuz 4 and 5 in 1969, but it was as part of regular Soyuz-Salyut operations between 1971 and 1986, followed by extensive Mir operations during 1986 through 2000, that they gained significant experience of automated and manual docking. This was supple­mented by experience with docking unmanned Progress resupply craft to Salyut, Mir, and then ISS from 1978. After over 40 years of docking Soyuz (and Progress) variants to space stations, the reliable Soyuz continues to be the mainstay of Earth orbital operations. In 2011, the Shenzhou 8 demonstrated Chinese unmanned space station docking capability and was followed the next year by the first docking of a crew, who completed both a manual and automated docking to Tiangong 1 aboard Shenzhou 9. Rendezvous and docking, plus station-keeping and proximity operations will remain a focal point of Earth orbital operations for the rest of this decade, 50 years after they were first demonstrated during Project Gemini.

While the Americans were completing their final excursions on the Moon, setting records on Skylab, and preparing to dock with Soyuz, the Soviets were recovering from the setback not only of Salyut 1, but also the officially unannounced launch failure of the second Salyut in July 1972. The in-orbit failure of the first Almaz station in April 1973 (which had been designated Salyut 2 to disguise its military objectives) was followed by the loss of a third Salyut just a month later. The latter one failed so soon after entering orbit that it was not assigned a Salyut designa­tion but instead was identified as Cosmos 557 to once again mask its true, failed mission. These frustrating setbacks were balanced, to a degree, by the successful solo flights of two manned Soyuz missions. In September 1973, Soyuz 12 evaluated the new improvements to the basic ferry design in a pre-announced and planned two-day test flight. This was followed by the week-long Soyuz 13 astronomical research mission in December 1973.

Things began to look up for the Soviets from 1974, with the launch of another Almaz (designated Salyut 3). Then came a civilian station (Salyut 4) in 1975 and another Almaz (Salyut 5) in 1976. A series of eight Soyuz ferry craft, each carry­ing a two-man crew, supported operations with these stations. The reduction from

the previous three-man team was a direct result of the findings of the Soyuz 11 disaster, which required the cosmonauts to be protected in pressure suits. The additional support equipment replaced the mass of a third crew member, until an improved Soyuz variant could be introduced.

Two missions were flown to Salyut 3 in 1974, with the Soyuz 14 crew complet­ing a successful 14-day residency and the first totally successful Soviet space station mission. But Soyuz 15 failed to dock with the station and came home after just two days, while Soyuz 16 was a dress rehearsal for the ASTP Soyuz mission and not associated with any Salyut. In early February 1975, the Soyuz 17 crew completed a 30-day mission to Salyut 4, followed just over three months later by the Soyuz 18 crew with a 63-day residency. This made Salyut 4 the first Soviet space station to host two resident crews. In between, though, came the first recorded launch abort of a manned mission, on April 5, 1975, when the original “Soyuz 18” suffered separation failure of a spent rocket stage. The ascent had to be aborted and the crew endured a rather hair-raising 20-minute ballistic trajectory flight and recovery near the border with China. The crew survived the ordeal but it was their backup crew who eventually flew the 63-day replacement mission. Their landing, just after the return of the Soyuz 19 ASTP crew, demonstrated Soviet ability to handle two separate manned space missions at the same time. The final mission to Salyut 4 was the unmanned Soyuz 20, which further tested the proposed robotic resupply missions being planned for the next-generation Salyut station.

The next Soviet station (Salyut 5) was a military Almaz version, with Soyuz 21 completing a 49-day visit in 1976, followed by an 18-day visit by Soyuz 24 early the following year. As with all the previous Salyuts, there were setbacks as well as successes. The Soyuz 21 crew were forced to return earlier than planned, due to “sensory deprivation” according to the official line, and reports that the crew encountered an “acrid odor” inside the station. This must have been resolved because two months after the crew came home a second Soyuz was launched to the station. Unfortunately, Soyuz 23 only completed a two-day flight after failing to dock with the station. This mission is remembered more for its hazardous landing and recovery than its achievements in orbit. The landing occurred during a snowstorm and, to make things worse, on a frozen lake. The recovery effort was one of the most challenging ever encountered during a manned space flight and, although both cosmonauts survived their ordeal, neither ever flew in space again.

Partially in preparation for the next Salyut and also to fly a backup spacecraft that had previously been assigned to the ASTP, another “solo” Soyuz was flown in September 1976 to test new equipment and procedures. During the Soyuz 22 mission, the two cosmonauts evaluated a new Earth terrain camera intended for the forthcoming second-generation Salyut station. At the time, reports indicated that the flight was part of a planned series of “solo” scientific Soyuz missions flown independently of space station operations, but this proved to be the final “solo” Soyuz mission. Perhaps this was misunderstood information, or a move by the Soviets to mask the fact that the two solo Soyuz missions of Soyuz 13 (astro – physical) and Soyuz 22 (Earth resources) were flown because of the absence of a civilian Salyut (and to utilize available hardware approaching the end of its operational lifetime). In any event these missions, along with Soyuz 6 (space welding) and Soyuz 9 (biomedical), provided the Soviets with the chance to conduct research relevant to their space station program in more depth.

Another interesting development during Soyuz 22 was an official release revealing that candidates from Eastern Bloc countries would soon be selected as cosmonauts (within a program known as Interkosmos), to fly on future Salyut missions with Soviet commanders. This was the first time a cosmonaut selection process, albeit international, had been announced ahead of time. It appeared to be in direct response to the news that American and international candidates would be selected for dedicated science missions, or to accompany specific payloads, flown on the Space Shuttle. These “part-time” astronauts would become known as payload specialists, while their cosmonaut equivalent would be known as cosmonaut researcher. With new NASA selections for career astronauts for the Shuttle pending, a new era of space exploration was rapidly approaching.

In September 1977, one of the most successful space stations, Salyut 6, was launched. Over the next four years, the program would include 18 Soyuz missions and the first flights of the new unmanned resupply craft—Progress—based on the Soyuz design. To accommodate this increase of traffic, the new Salyut featured two docking ports, in theory to allow crews and vehicles to be exchanged for continuous manning of the station. On Salyut 6, however, although some Soyuz vehicles were replaced for fresh vehicles on orbit as their operational life came to an end, leaving a new vehicle with the resident crew; the expected exchange of resident crews did not occur.

What was introduced on this station was EVA capability, with the completion of the first space walks by cosmonauts since 1969. There was a series of missions flown by representatives of the Interkosmos countries between 1978 and 1981 and new world endurance records were set of 96, 140, 175, and then 185 days. Late in 1980, a short evaluation mission was flown to confirm that the station could support one final residence of 75 days which would allow the crew to host the final two Interkosmos missions. The Salyut 6 program also included an unmanned test flight of the new Soyuz variant (Soyuz T) and three test missions (Soyuz T2, T3, and T4) to confirm its operational integrity, prior to full operations with the next Salyut. Towards the end of the station’s operational fife, it acquired the first add-on module (Kosmos 1267), which was developed from an intended military manned spacecraft and ferry vehicle but now designed to test the potential for adding scientific modules to future space stations and to evaluate the structural integrity between two such vehicles.