Category Manned Spaceflight Log II—2006-2012

The main focus for humans in space until at least 2020 will be in low Earth orbit and in operations associated with space stations; primarily the International Space Station but also the Chinese series of stations called Tiangong (“Heavenly Palace”). At both facilities, successive expeditions are expected to perform a wide range of experiments and research programs focusing attention towards our own planet Earth. Some will investigate the mysteries of the space environment, while others will develop the technologies to support operations for our eventual return to the Moon and on to Mars, the asteroids, or other strategic deep-space points. These could potentially lead to future manned explorations throughout our solar system later this century and into the next.

International Space Station operations

With the majority of the construction completed, the ISS has finally been able to become the leading scientific research facility it was always intended to be. Expedi­tions comprising up to six crew members are now utilizing the international facilities and resources to conduct a range of investigations in research fields that have been promoted as the reasons for the existence of large space stations for over 30 years.

The known crewing (as of October 31, 2012) for ISS operations through 2015 are presented in Table 5.1.

The subtle change from constructing the ISS to learning from it was not an overnight event. Indeed, “science” had been conducted on the facility almost from the start of operations, but it was not until the arrival of the U. S. laboratory Destiny in 2001 that “real” science on the ISS could begin. Gradually over the years (and over 30 expeditions), the science program has expanded, apart from the hiatus caused by the tragic loss of Columbia in 2003. The completion of the truss and solar array assembly, the arrival of the European and Japanese science facil­ities during 2008, and the increased permanent crew size from three to six the following year have enabled the scientific research program to reach its true poten­tial. Regular reports are posted on the internet from the partner agencies, detailing the latest daily operations and activities across the station. Among the most useful sites are

• http://www. nasa. gov/directorates/heo/reports/iss_reports/

(daily reports on ISS activities)

• http://www. esa. intlSPECIALSIColumbuslSEMBQ84S18H_0.html

(regular weekly reports on activities aboard the European Columbus laboratory)

• http: //kibo. jaxa. jp/en/experiment/

(latest news on activities on the Japanese Kibo laboratory)

• http: / /www. federalspace. ru/main. php? id= 2&nid= 19641

(daily updates on activities aboard the Russian Segment—in Russian).

Sadly, most of this work does not make the news outside of the partner agencies or “space”-dedicated websites, which makes informing the general public of what the crews are actually doing on the station more difficult. With the growth of social media applications there has been an increase of postings from the ISS over the past few years, but the days of the “right-stuff” headline-grabbing missions are long gone, at least for the foreseeable future.

No space flight can truly be termed “routine” and yet that is exactly what the crews on the ISS are attempting to establish—a regular, smooth running and productive scientific research program to provide genuine advances in space opera­tions, at least in Earth orbit. Quite simply, missions like those being conducted on the station just do not make major headlines, unless something goes wrong.

This “routine” aspect is dependent upon a regular supply of logistics from Earth. Since the retirement of the American Space Shuttle, this has become a little more difficult to achieve using only the smaller vehicles that remain available. The loss of the mass-carrying capability of the Shuttle (in particular for removing trash and redundant equipment from the station) will probably never be replaced in the lifetime of the ISS, even with the proposed new vehicles under consideration (see below). The venerable Russian Soyuz (in operational service since 1967) will con­tinue, in its latest TMA-M version, as the primary resident crew transport ferry and rescue vehicle, but has a relatively small capacity for the return of scientific payload from orbit. The TMA-M could be phased out by 2015 to be replaced by a new variant (Soyuz-MS) which is expected to have further systems upgrades but still resemble the basic Soyuz TMA craft. The unmanned Progress version (now flying as the Progress M-M series), which first flew in 1978 to Salyut 6, continues to provide a regular supply service, ferrying cargo to the station and disposing of trash in destructive atmospheric reentries.

Like the Progress, the European ATV and Japanese HTV unmanned resupply vehicles also have the capability to dispose of waste and unwanted hardware during a destructive reentry, but the return of samples and hardware to Earth is not currently available on these operational craft. This void may, at least partially, be filled by the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft, which, in 2012 completed a successful demonstration mission of its capability to fly to the ISS unmanned, dock and deliver supplies, and then return to an ocean recovery. This was a significant step towards replacing the Shuttle with a (partially) commercially funded vehicle.

There remain a few additional modules to be launched to the station for the Russian segment. These much delayed Russian modules are expected to include

• the Nauka (“Science”) Multipurpose Laboratory Module (replacing the Pirs module) and delivery of the European Robotic Arm (ERA); and

• the Nodal Module for the attachment of both the Scientific and Power Producing Module-1 and the Scientific and Power Producing Module-2.

It has been agreed by the international partners to continue flying expeditions to the ISS on Soyuz through to 2020, and possibly as long as 2028, as long as the hardware can support the program. If this happens, and there is no certainty that this will be possible, it would result in almost 30 years of continuous operational expedition activity, doubling the record established on Mir and setting the stage for the next step in orbital exploitation around our planet. Exactly what form that next step will take is also, at present, far from certain.

As this book was about to go to press news began to emerge about a new challenge to be attempted on the International Space Station. On October 5, 2012

NASA announced plans to launch in 2015 one American and one Russian (but without identifying them) on a 1 yr long expedition to the ISS, this being part of the plans to understand how humans adapt to long-duration spaceflight, with an eye to returning to the Moon or journeying out deeper into space. Using the ISS as a base for these experiments will help better prepare for such journeys. In July 2012 ISS veteran Peggy Whitson stepped down as Chief Astronaut to resume space station training and it was suggested she may be one of the NASA candidates for the yearlong mission.

The announcement of a two-person crew for the yearlong mission also generated media suggestions that an opportunity might arise for the third seat on Soyuz to be occupied by a space flight participant on a short-stay mission to the station. Of course, should this be the case, room would have to be made for the tourist on the returning Soyuz with only two outgoing resident crew members coming home instead of three as is now standard. Perhaps partial crew exchange would be possible, but this would alter the current crewing protocol we have seen since 2009 when the last space flight participant, Canadian Guy Laliberte, was launched to the station. On October 10 it was announced in Moscow that British classical crossover artist Sarah Brightman was a candidate for such a flight with Space Adventures, possibly representing UNESCO as an “artist for peace” and to continue her STEM (Science Technology, Engineering, Math) scholarship work for women. It will be interesting to see how the future of the Space Flight Partici­pant Program develops over the rest of this decade and how such flights will, or will not, feature in the longer term planning for the remainder of ISS operations.

On the same day of the yearlong mission announcement (October 5) JAXA astronaut Kimiya Yui had been selected by the Japanese space agency for the Expedition 44/45 mission. A fact overlooked by most of the media, he would serve as a flight rngineer for a 6-month residence commencing around June 2015 and would begin expedition training later that month.

Amidst all this speculation on November 26, 2012, it was announced that NASA had chosen Scott Kelly and Roscosmos had selected Mikhail Komiyenko for the year-long mission. Further crewing assignments through the 50th ISS expedition were expected during the early months of 2013.

2010-11A April 2, 2010

Pad 1, Site 5, Baikonur Cosmodrome, Republic of

Kazakhstan

September 25, 2010

Southwest of Arkalyk, Republic of Kazakhstan Soyuz-FG (serial number Ю15000-028),

Soyuz TMA-18 (serial number 228)

176 da 1 h 18 min 38 s Utes (“Cliff”)

ISS resident crew transport (22S), ISS 23/24 resident crew

Flight Crew

SKVORTSOV, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich, 43, Russian Federation Air Force, RSA, Soyuz TMA commander, ISS-23 flight engineer, ISS-24 commander KORNIENKO. Mikhail Borisovich, 49, civilian, RSA, Soyuz TMA flight engineer, ISS 23/24 FE

CALDWELL DYSON, Tracy Ellen, 40, civilian, NASA Soyuz TMA flight engineer, ISS 23/24 flight engineer

Flight log

This trio of cosmonauts arrived at the ISS on April 4, 2010. They would serve as flight engineers on ISS-23 under Oleg Kotov as ISS commander until June 2, when the TMA-17 crew departed and their ISS-24 residency began under the command of Skvortsov. On June 18, they were joined on the ISS by the Soyuz TMA-19 crew who became the prime ISS-25 crew after this trio departed. By now, regular rota­tion of crews had become a feature of station operations and one result of its frequency and seemingly routine nature was that these activities dropped down the news-reporting pecking order outside of the space community.

This of course reflects a safe, regular, and consistent period of flight operations, but does not serve to promote the program to the outside world. It is in this situation that the official websites, new reports, and support information from the partner agencies have to champion the program, after such a long time in development and construction. Up on orbit, the promotion of the program through outreach and educational activities is as important as the baseline science, while the crews were also still hard at work finishing the assembly and completing the transformation of the station into the fully functioning research facility it was intended to be. This work has been aided by the growing phenomena of social

media, in part thanks to the regular blogs, tweets, and messages from the crews on board the station.

During this residency, the crew continued the Russian science work begun by the earlier crews, with 363 planned sessions for 42 experiments, of which only two were new investigations. In the ISS-23 phase, over 114 hours of crew experiment time was manifested, with a further 20 hours 15 minutes planned during the ISS-24 phase. The change from assembly to research was becoming more evident with each new expedition, and the subtitle on the ISS-23/24 NASA Press Kit stated that this expedition would include “Science for Six”. Therefore, in the U. S. segment there would be 130 investigations from 45 new experiments, as well as those ongoing from earlier expeditions with 8 experiments specific to its role as a U. S. National Laboratory and a further 55 investigations from the international partner agencies.

After the docking at Poisk on April 4, the next couple of months proved to be busy prior to the departure of the ISS-22/23 crew in June and the commencement of the ISS-24 phase. Just three days after the TMA-18 crew had arrived at the station, STS-131 arrived aboard Discovery, which docked at the Harmony Node with more supplies. Then, in May STS-132 delivered the Russian Rassvet module.

With the science work, routine maintenance, and housekeeping, work associated with the Progress resupply craft, and the relocation of accumulated logistics, the new crew had plenty to keep them occupied during the first half of their residency. As a result, light duties were planned for the three crew members until the rest of the ISS-24 crew arrived.

Following the arrival of the TMA-19 crew, the two crews soon completed post-docking safety checks and drills and began an increased science program. On June 28, while the TMA-19 crew relocated their Soyuz from the aft part of Zvezda to the Rassvet module, the TMA-18 crew remained inside the station. On July 1, Progress M-04M was undocked from the station, to be replaced on July 4 by Progress M-06M. The 2-day delay in the docking was caused by a loss of a telemetry lock on M-06M, but its second approach occurred without incident.

Diversity featured in most of the routine operations on the station, with crews working in different modules to cope with the increased science research, mainten­ance, and housekeeping duties in the Russian and U. S. segments as well as in the Columbia and Kibo laboratories. On July 11, the crew recorded a partial solar eclipse across the world while continuing their preparations for a series of EYAs.

On July 16, Progress М-ОбМ completed a 17 min 45 s reboost to the ISS, increasing its altitude by 2.3 miles (3.07 km). This was necessary to provide the best conditions for docking the next Progress and to ensure the safe return of TMA-18. During July 15-24, the crews observed the 35th anniversary of the joint U. S./U. S.S. R. Apollo-Soyuz Test Project mission.

Three EYAs were planned in July and August, from both U. S. and Russian airlocks. The first EVA of the expedition from the Russian segment, by Yurchikhin and Kornienko, took place on July 27 from Pirs. During the 6h 42 min excursion, the cosmonauts replaced several items of equipment and visually inspected the exterior of the Russian segment.

The focus now switched to a series of EVAs from the U. S. segment by Wheelock and Caldwell. The first of these took place on August 7 and lasted a record 8 hours 3 minutes—the longest ISS-based EVA and the sixth longest space walk in history. Unfortunately, they failed in their primary goal to remove and replace the ammonia pump module, falling behind the timeline when one of the four coolant fines became stuck. They loosened the stuck valve, but could not totally disconnect the unit as they approached the end of the EVA. An issue with leaking ammonia crystals also required additional cleanup time, leading to the unexpected record EVA duration. Wheelock later admitted that this EVA was “a tough one”.

The next EVA (August 11, 7h 26 min) focused upon removal of the fluid coolant fine that had leaked during the first EVA. Using brute force, Wheelock closed and removed the fine safely. The pair then disconnected the defunct assembly from the truss and installed it on a payload bracket located on the Mobile Base Assembly. The third EVA (August 16, 7h 20 min) from Quest featured the installation of a spare ammonia pump module on the SI truss. The three U. S. segment EVAs totaled 22 hours 49 minutes, and with these excursions completed it was back to the science.

September saw the TMA-18 crew prepare for their return to Earth. A change – of-command ceremony was conducted on September 22, during which Skvortsov handed over command of the ISS to Doug Wheelock. After a short, 24 h delay due to an erroneous signal, Soyuz TMA-18 undocked on September 25. Following a nominal reentry, Soyuz TMA-18 landed some 3 hours 20 minutes after undock­ing from the station. During a mission of 176 days the crew had resided aboard the station for approximately 174 days. Two days were flown aboard the Soyuz getting to and from the facility. Of the 171 days in residency, 59 days were as part of the ISS-23 expedition and 112 days as the prime ISS-24 expedition. They also spent three days as the outgoing crew prior to undocking from the station.

Milestones

274th manned space flight 111th Russian manned space flight 104th manned Soyuz flight 18th manned Soyuz TMA mission 22nd ISS Soyuz mission (22S)

23/24th ISS resident crew

Record longest ISS-based EVA (August 7, 8 h 3 min)

Caldwell-Dyson celebrates her 41st birthday (August 14); this was her second birthday spent in space having marked her 38th birthday during STS-118 in 2007

Flight crew

POINDEXTER, Alan Goodwin, 48, USN, NASA commander, second mission Previous mission: STS-122 (2008)

DUTTON Jr., James Patrick, 41, USAF, NASA pilot MASTRACCHIO, Richard Alan, 50, civilian, NASA mission specialist 1, third mission

Previous missions’. STS-106 (2000), STS-118 (2007)

METCALF-LINDENBURGER, Dorothy Marie, 34, civilian, NASA mission specialist 2

WILSON, Stephanie Diana, 43, civilian, NASA mission specialist 3, third mission

Previous missions’. STS-121 (2006), STS-120 (2007)

YAMAZAKI, Naoko, 39, civilian (Japanese), JAXA mission specialist 4 ANDERSON, Clayton Conrad, 51, civilian, NASA mission specialist 5, second mission

Previous missions’. STS-117/ISS-15/16/STS-120 (2007)

Flight log

With only four or five manifested Shuttle flights to the ISS before their retirement in 2011, the chances of carrying large items to and from the station on the orbiter were diminishing rapidly. Though the majority of the main hardware had been delivered (certainly on the U. S. segment), there still remained a few bulky items to be launched. Time seemed to have flown by since the start of construction just under a dozen years previously and now the countdown to assembly completion was ticking away. One of the main objectives for the payload capacity in these few remaining missions was to stock up the station with supplies and spares. Another was to remove as much unwanted equipment, waste, discarded items, and experi-

ment results as possible to free up the internal volume of the station while the Shuttle’s large load capacity was still available. On this mission, therefore, Discov­ery was carrying the Leonardo Multipurpose Logistics Module (MPLM), which was filled with about 8 tons of supplies and hardware. It would return to Earth with valuable experiment results and samples, unwanted equipment, and as much trash as possible.

As with most previous flights, final preparations for the mission began with the arrival of Discovery back at KSC following its last mission. Two weeks after landing in California at the end of the STS-128 mission in September 2009, Discovery was returned to the Cape. Initial inspections conducted inside the OPF revealed relatively few issues that needed to be addressed in processing for the next mission. Having the MPLM as the primary payload made the preflight processing somewhat easier as well, as the logistics carrier would be installed in the payload bay when Discovery was on the pad.

The stacking of the twin SRBs began in early October and the ET had been mated with the boosters by late November. Everything was ready for the move of Discovery across to the VAB but the weather refused to play ball, with exception­ally cold temperatures being recorded. As a result, the move was delayed until February 22. The mated stack was then moved out to Pad 39A on March 3. The delay shifted the planned launch from March 18 to April 4 but this happened to be the Easter weekend. This was impractical for launch teams, so April 5 was chosen instead. This also gave the new residents on the station, who were sched­uled to arrive via Soyuz TMA-18 on April 4, additional time to acclimatize to their new home before the Shuttle arrived.

Launchpad preparations proceeded smoothly, with the MPLM placed on board Discovery on March 19. After an on-time launch on April 5, 2010, Discovery was back in orbit within 8 minutes to begin a 2-day chase to station. Docking occurred on April 7. When the hatches were opened and the familiar ceremonies observed, the mission was already adding new milestones to the history books. For the first time, four women were in space at the same time and now they were all aboard the same spacecraft. Two Japanese astronauts were also flying together for the first time as well. The orbiter crew also included the final rookies that would fly on a Shuttle mission—Metcalf-Lindenburger, Yamazaki, and Dutton.

Nine days of joint activities were planned following the docking. The MPLM was moved to the Earth-facing port on Harmony on April 7 for unloading. The loadmaster on the crew, in charge of moving the 17,0001b (7711.20 kg) of cargo between the spacecraft and the station, was Yamazaki. With cargo floating both ways, she would be kept very busy during her stay on board the station.

The major elements of cargo transferred were a Muscle Atrophy Research and Exercise System Rack, a Window Operational Research Facility, an ExPRESS Rack and Zero-G Storage Racks, Resupply Storage Racks, the final four resident crew sleeping quarters (intended for installation in Harmony), the third Minus Eighty Degree Laboratory Freezer, and equipment for a new water production system. Other, smaller items of equipment, supplies, and stores were also trans­ferred. With Leonardo emptied, the cargo intended for return to Earth was loaded back into the MPLM.

While work continued inside the station, the crew was also occupied outside, with Anderson and Mastracchio completing three EVAs totahng 20 hours 17 minutes. The first of these (April 9, 6h 27 min) began the work of exchanging an old Ammonia Tank Assembly (with a mass of 1,8001b or 816.48 kg) with a new unit. This took up most of the EVA timeline, but the two men worked efficiently and were able to also repair a Rate Gyro Assembly and retrieve a Material Experiment Exposure Device from the exterior of the Japanese module. The following day was a planned rest day, during which the crew were informed that their mission would be extended by 24 hours to facilitate the RMS inspection of the heat shield while docked with the station instead of after undocking. This was due to a failed Ku-band communication antenna on the orbiter.

The second EVA (April 11, 7 h 26 min) continued the work on the Ammonia Tank Assembly. Despite some difficulty with the installation of the hold-down bolts, the pair were able to complete most of their tasks, with just a few delayed to their third space walk. Electrical cables were connected but the ammonia and nitrogen lines were not. Two micromaterial debris shields were retrieved for analysis back on Earth.

The crew rest day of April 12 was also the 49th anniversary of Gagarin’s flight and the 29th anniversary of the first Shuttle flight. These events were noted in communication sessions with ground control centers, one of which featured a call from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. The final EVA (April 13, 6 h 24 min) began with the tasks carried over from EVA 2, plus the return of the old Ammonia Tank into the Shuttle’s payload bay. The crew then completed several smaller tasks before winding up the exterior activities for the mission.

In the closing four days of the docked phase, the joint crews completed the relocation of cargo, returning the refilled MPLM back into the payload bay on April 16. They also held press conferences and enjoyed a day off. The undocking on April 17, after 10 days 5 hours 8 minutes of joint operations, was followed shortly afterwards by the traditional fly-around maneuver before the orbiter departed from the vicinity of the orbital complex.

Discovery flew a descending node reentry on April 20 and, in the daylight hours, took the orbiter over most of the continental U. S.A. This profile had been flown only once before (on STS-120 in 2007) since the loss of Columbia in 2003, but it was a journey that afforded the flight deck crew a spectacular panorama as they approached the landing site in Florida.

Milestones

275th world manned space flight 161st U. S. manned space flight 33rd Shuttle ISS mission 131st Shuttle flight 38th Discovery flight 12th Discovery ISS flight 10 th and final round trip MPLM flight 7 th Leonardo MPLM flight First time three females fly on same Shuttle mission

First time four females in space at same time (with ISS resident crew member Caldwell-Dyson)

First time four females on the ISS at same time First time two JAXA astronauts in space at same time First time two JAXA astronauts on the ISS same time

Dutton, Metcalf-Lindburger, and Yamazaki become the final rookies to fly on a Shuttle

Flight crew

HAM, Kenneth Todd, 45, USN, NASA commander, second mission Previous mission: STS-124 (2008)

ANTONELLI, Dominic Anthony, 42, USN, NASA pilot, second mission Previous mission: STS-119 (2009)

REISMAN, Garrett Erin, 42, civilian, NASA mission specialist 1, second mission

Previous mission: STS-123/ISS-16/17/STS-124 (2008)

GOOD, Michael Timothy, 47, USAF, NASA mission specialist 2, second mission

Previous mission: STS-125 (2010)

BOWEN, Stephen George, 46, USN, NASA mission specialist 3, second mission Previous mission: STS-126 (2008)

SELLERS, Piers John, 55, civilian, NASA mission specialist 4, third mission Previous missions: STS-112 (2002), STS-121 (2006)

Flight log

The STS-132 mission was significant in that the primary payload was not American, but the Russian-built Mini Research Module-1 (MRM-1), also known as Rassvet (“Dawn”). This module was to be installed on to the lower (nadir, Earth-facing) port of Zarya. The secondary payload was the second Integrated Cargo Carrier (ICC), packed with further spare supplies and equipment.

Inside the YAB, the External Tank was attached to the twin SRBs on March 29. The rollover of Atlantis to the assembly building on April 13 recorded only 22 problems being tracked since the orbiter’s return from STS-129. The payload arrived at the pad inside the payload canister on April 15. Rollout to the pad had

been scheduled for April 19, but bad weather delayed transfer until late on April 21, with the stack arriving after a 6.5 h journey in the early hours of April 22. The payload was installed in the cargo bay of the orbiter three days later.

Atlantis blasted olf from KSC on time with an all-veteran crew aboard. Just over eight minutes later, the flight entered orbit to begin the chase to station. The following day was taken up with an RMS inspection of the heat shield and preparing the EVA suits and equipment for the planned space walks. Prior to docking, the now traditional backflip maneuver was completed for visual checking and imagery by the station crew. Atlantis docked at the PMA-2 port of Harmony on May 16, less than a month after Discovery had departed at the end of mission STS-131. Two hours later, both crews were inside the station preparing to embark on a week of joint activities.

The Integrated Cargo Carrier was transferred to the station by Canadarm2 and placed on the Mobile Transporter. This unit was packed with spares and equipment for installation during the three EVAs. The unit also held spares designed to support the life of the station towards (and hopefully beyond) 2020. These included a spare Ku-band antenna and truss, six NiH batteries, and spare hardware components for the Dextre manipulator system.

The three EVAs logged 21 hours 20 minutes, with three astronauts (Reisman, Bowen, and Good) completing two space walks each. The first EVA was by Bowen and Reisman (May 17, 7h 25 min) and featured a number of hardware installations, including a space-to-ground Ku-band antenna on the station truss and a new tool platform for Dextre. There was time at the end of the EVA for a get-ahead task, with the crew loosening several bolts holding the batteries that would be exchanged over the next two space walks.

On May 18, the Rassvet module was grappled by the RMS, handed over to the space station RMS, and then attached permanently to the nadir port on Zarya. The Rassvet module features eight workstations inside its pressurized com­partment. It was designed for a variety of scientific experiment operations and research. Taking advantage of the payload and launch capacity of the Shuttle, the Rassvet had 1.5 tons of cargo, supplies, and scientific gear for relocation to the U. S. segment packed inside. The Russians reported that the scientific research to be conducted in the new module included developing technologies, biological sciences, fluid physics, and educational research.

The second EVA (May 19, 7h 9 min) was by Bowen and Good, who began by releasing a snagged cable on the Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS). The pair then began the exchange of five of the six batteries, a process known as “shepherding”, with the old batteries intended for return to Earth. The team then completed a couple of small chores before wrapping up their excursion. The next day, cosmonauts Kotov and Skvortsov opened the inner hatches and entered Rassvet for the first time.

The final EVA (May 21, 6h 46 min) by Good and Reisman was primarily devoted to completing the exchange of batteries. The original units had a design life of six and a half years but had been in operation for nine years. Prior to closing out the space walk, the astronauts left a Power Data Grapple Fixture in the Quest airlock and prepared the ICC for return to the payload bay of Atlantis, which occurred on May 22. In total, Bowen accumulated 14 hours 34 minutes in two space walks, Reisman logged 14 hours 11 minutes on his two EVAs, and Good completed his two excursions in 13 hours 55 minutes.

Following a couple of rest days, completion of the transfer of cargo signaled the end of joint work with the station crew. During their week of joint activities, the crews had moved over 2,8791b (1305.91 kg) of cargo into the station and some 8,2291b (3732.67 kg) back into Atlantis. The orbiter was undocked on May 23 after 7 days 0 hours 54 minutes. Following the normal fly-around to photograph the station and Shuttle, the two vehicles separated, allowing the Atlantis crew to prepare for the return home and the station crew to resume their science program.

On May 26, Atlantis swooped to a spectacular landing on Runway 33 at the Cape. Following the visit of Atlantis, the station had grown to a mass of 815,0001b (369,684kg) and was now 94% complete by volume and over 98% complete by mass.

Although this was originally to be the final flight of Atlantis, there were plans to prepare the orbiter to be a launch-on-need rescue vehicle (designated STS-335) for STS-134, then scheduled as the final Shuttle mission of the program. However, discussions were ongoing over using the additional hardware for one more flight (STS-13 5). NASA had already bought an extra ET and SRB and needed only Congressional agreement and funding to mount the extra mission.

Milestones

276th world manned space flight 162nd U. S. manned space flight 34th Shuttle ISS mission 132nd Shuttle flight 32nd Atlantis flight 11th Atlantis ISS flight

Only Russian ISS segment component launched by U. S. Shuttle

The news of a yearlong residency on the ISS came a few weeks after closer cooperation between Europe and China was reported. This could, it was sug­gested, develop into the possibility of an ESA astronaut flying aboard a Chinese spacecraft by 2020. Whether this would be to a Tiangong station or the ISS was not clear and remains an open issue to be decided as objections, technical issues, and logistics are debated in the coming years. With the expected reduction or demise of ISS operations after 2020 and the predicted increase in Chinese space station operations from that date, clearly the opportunity to continue and perhaps increase the rate of flying European astronauts on long-duration missions has a certain Eastern promise to it.

The Chinese have also indicated a desire to create their own large space station from which to expand their manned space flight operations, possibly looking towards the Moon and perhaps far beyond. Their first steps were com­pleted between 1999 and 2008 with Shenzhou operations, developing manned space flight capability and the infrastructure to support that effort in launch, orbital operations, and recovery. Their successful maiden flight of one person in 2003 drew upon the experiences (and particularly the design) of the Russian program, giving the Chinese a head start in developing their own program. They were to build upon this experience far quicker than either the Soviets or Americans had been able to in the 1960s. By 2008, the Chinese had demonstrated the capability of flying up to three crew members for several days, as well as EVA capability that could be used to support future space station operations. What had taken the Soviets eight missions to achieve with Vostok/Voskhod and the Americans around 10 missions with Mercury and Gemini, the Chinese accomplished in just three flights.

There were of course significant differences between the 1960s and the 2000s, most notably in the number of missions flown in the 1960s and what other achievements had been accomplished. The Soviets had flown 16 manned missions between April 1961 and June 1970, including the first man in space, first female, first group flight, first crew, first EVA, first manned docking and crew transfer (by EVA) and longest solo manned space flight at 18 days. In contrast, the Soviets had only achieved one manned docking and relatively little spacewalking experi­ence in comparison with the Americans during Gemini and Apollo. The five Apollo missions dispatched to the Moon between December 1968 and April 1970 added very little to the database of low Earth orbit operations, but volumes to explorations away from the planet. It is certain that the Chinese will have studied the lessons learned by the Americans during their unmanned precursor lunar mis­sions and the Apollo experience, and from the Soviet successes and setbacks in both their manned and unmanned lunar exploration program.

Although the Moon may indeed be a future target of Chinese space planners, the immediate focus for the next few years is the creation of a series of space stations leading to the establishment of a large complex. This will be similar to the gradual development of Soviet space station operations at Salyut, Mir, and finally the ISS, but again over a much shorter timescale and with far fewer missions. Once again, the Chinese will be learning from others in order to advance their own program without the need to mount unnecessary and expensive development missions. Official Chinese reports have stated that Tiangong-1 is intended as an experimental test bed, designed to develop the skills of rendezvous and docking that are essential to support a larger space station. The first Tiangong is expected to support three missions, one unmanned (Shenzhou 8 in 2011) and two manned (Shenzhou 9 in 2012 and Shenzhou 10 by 2013). Once these missions are com­pleted, the station will be de-orbited later in 2013, to be replaced by the much larger Tiangong-2 and Tiangong-3 laboratories.

According to the Chinese, Tiangong-2 will be able to support much more sophisticated experiments and research than its pioneering predecessor. Tiangong 3 will be a multimodule design (possibly resembling the Mir configuration) which will be resupplied by Progress-type unmanned freighters. The Chinese goal is to have a fully functional (ISS class) space station in orbit by 2020. If this does occur, it will have taken them less than 10 years, in comparison with the 40 yr period between the first Salyut and completion of the ISS!

It was a sound heard around the world, a faint beep-beep-beep from an object in orbit around the world named Sputnik. The date was October 4, 1957 and the U. S.S. R. had just launched the first satellite into space. The United States launched Vanguard shortly after but it was a complete failure and a humiliation to a proud nation. Then, on January 31, 1958, the United States successfully launched the Explorer into orbit on a Jupiter C rocket.

The space race was on and would have the world’s attention that has lasted to this day. Each side built and launched rockets and men into orbit in quick succes­sion. Yuri Gagarin was the first human to almost orbit the Earth, reentering just short of one complete orbit. He was the hero of the time, and the U. S.S. R. was clearly the leader in space travel. The United States could not allow the Soviets to hold that lead because of the political climate. The result was that the United States embarked on a very ambitious program, not only to catch up with the Soviets but to show technical and operational superiority in this new arena. The country that controlled space would be the envy of the world and hold a giant edge over everyone else. The military considers the “high ground” very important and many battles have been fought over it. Space is the ultimate high ground, and the Soviets made other countries and especially the United States very nervous because of Sputnik. They had the high ground and the United States could not five with the idea that they did not control that vantage point.

So, the American Space Program was born. In 1957 the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), formed in 1915, was dissolved and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) created to replace it. The base for NASA was the ongoing research centers at Langley in Virginia, Lewis in Cleveland, Ohio, and Dryden and Ames in California. There would soon be several additional centers dedicated to the space side of the effort: in Houston, Texas; Huntsville, Alabama; and at Cape Canaveral, Florida; plus some smaller centers around the country for specialized work. The groundwork was laid for a

launch center at Cape Canaveral, and a massive building program commenced. It was decided to keep all the space centers close to the southern edge of the country to facilitate the movement of huge structures by barge to the launch site. The “Cape”, which later became Kennedy Space Center, would become the national launch center for American astronauts to fly into space.

The U. S. Space Program was not just about placing a man in space. It was also about the technology that would allow the U. S. to do things in space that no other country could accomplish. Solid state technology replaced vacuum tubes and resulted in lower weight and size for any given device. It was also more reliable and less energy consuming. This was the kind of thinking and machinery that would get astronauts from the U. S. to the Moon and back safely and consistently. It would, incidentally, also provide the technical edge for American industry to build and sell products around the world.

The human side of the space equation was also getting started early in 1958 and 1959 when NASA selected the first seven astronauts. They were a diverse group, mostly test pilots or engineers, and in great physical shape. They were also very media friendly, and NASA made much of the Boy Scout aura around them. The first group of 7 (except for Deke Slayton who had a heart problem) went into space as part of the Mercury Project, the first step in the program to place a man on the Moon. Other groups were picked to provide more astronauts for future flights that would be more complicated and designed to mimic the maneuvers and procedures that would be required to make a lunar landing.

The Gemini Program was established to prove that the elements of a lunar landing flight could be accomplished in Earth orbit. The final plan for the lunar landing was to fly two vehicles to the Moon: a Command Module (CSM) that would serve as a mother ship and a Lunar Module (LM) that would be used to actually descend to the Moon and land. The two vehicles would separate while in lunar orbit for the LM to make the landing, and then the two vehicles would join in lunar orbit after the landing crew finished on the surface. It was a risky but high-reward plan. The maneuvers that had to be developed to make all this happen were incorporated into the Gemini program. So, the Gemini flights would test and confirm that lunar orbit rendezvous and docking could be accomplished, that space walks (EVAs) could be accomplished safely and that man could survive okay for two weeks in space. All of these objectives were accomplished and the stage was set for Apollo.

The Apollo program, the most ambitious endeavor ever attempted by mankind, was bom in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy challenged the American people to land a man on the Moon and bring him back safely within 10 years. It electrified the country and the world. NASA was ready and the funding was available quickly. America went into space. The original seven astronauts flew on the Mercury project and the next groups flew the Gemini and finally the Apollo to the Moon. Neil Armstrong was the epitome of the space traveler. He was quiet, unassuming, and the perfect person to be the role model for the space program, and that is to say nothing of his competence to do the job. The steps leading up to Apollo 11, the infrastructure of the various centers, the selection and training of astronauts from Mercury to Apollo, and the strategy designed to put a man on the Moon were all

accomplished with great success, providing the confidence for NASA managers to go forward to the Moon.

After the successful Apollo program, NASA conducted the Skylab space station and Space Shuttle programs. The Shuttle was designed to complete multiple missions into Earth orbit by flying a reusable vehicle much like an airplane. A wide range of scientific payloads were carried into orbit, satelhtes and planetary probes deployed, and servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope accomplished. There were also a number of scientific missions flown in pressurized laboratory modules, leading to long missions on future space stations. The Shuttle was a remarkable vehicle, much ahead of its time.

Over in the Soviet Union the emphasis focused on long-duration space flight in a series of Salyut space stations. By the 1970s there was a thaw in relations between the United States and the Soviets which resulted in a joint demonstration mission—the Apollo Soyuz Test Project—and 20 years later to further cooperation in the Shuttle – Mir space station program. This partnership has evolved today into working to­gether on the International Space Station (ISS) built with the resources of the Space Shuttle and foreign partners. The ISS has been a truly international project, with astronauts getting there via a Russian spacecraft. Soon they will be delivered to the ISS by a civilian spacecraft. Resupplies arrive on freighters from Europe and Japan

and crew members come from many different nations. It is at the ISS that the new skills necessary to venture away from Earth are gained.

Low Earth orbit (LEO) will become a commercial venture in the near future. The growth of space tourism will open up opportunities for many to experience, the thrill and wonder of a flight into space, but it will be up to governments and perhaps new international partnerships to do the long-term funding for flights into deep space.

I was part of the great Apollo experiment, flying as the Command Module Pilot of Apollo 15. By the time we flew in July of 1971, we were very confident in the system, the machinery, and the people in mission control. In fact we were quite comfortable doing many of the things in flight that had been done by mission control before us. For instance, we did most of our own navigation during the flight. We trained mostly for those things that could go wrong, believing that if everything went okay it would be easy. We were getting the hang of space flight, and it was beyond comprehension for a guy that grew up on a farm in Michigan. This country accomplished six lunar landings without an accident. Remarkable!!

There have been unbelievable feats achieved by many nations to get into space. There are now many countries that have the capability to send humans into space, and at least one country that could probably go to the Moon in a few years. The United States does not have long-term space capability right now, so we will be in the bleachers until this country gets back on track. In the meantime, the development of technology will be important to whatever we do in space.

The past 50 years have been rapid-growth years for the manned and unmanned space programs of many countries. We have learned much about planet Earth,

ourselves, and from the robotic spacecraft sent to explore our nearest planets. We will, as a community of nations, continue to move outward to the planets and eventually to other solar systems where there might be intelligent life. Someday we might need to go there to escape from a planet that is no longer habitable, but that is far into the future.

As the number of missions into space increase, so their exploits naturally disappear from the headlines. Only when we return to the Moon or venture to Mars will human space exploration once again be at the forefront of the world’s media or, of course in times of tragedy, as there surely will be. It is important to record the development, activities, and results from our still relatively few journeys into space.

With each mission accomplished today, a new topic of history is created for tomorrow. In decades to come, when the dawn of the space age is reflected upon, our achievements and disappointments will be scrutinized in detail. From records kept at the time future generations will learn how our adventure in space began.

The first rockets to explore space flew a basic up-and-down trajectory and did not have the velocity (of 18,000 mph or 29,000 kph) to attain Earth orbit. In their plans to place a man in space first, both the Americans and the Soviets investi­gated a program of suborbital space shots, launching on smaller rockets to about 100 miles (approximately 160 km) before separating for landing several hundred miles downrange. Clearly these rockets could not attain the thrust required for orbital flight and the vehicles they carried (commonly called capsules) would not have the capacity for a controlled land landing similar to the X-15, so they were termed suborbital missions. While the Russians abandoned the suborbital program in favor of proceeding directly to orbital missions, NASA chose to send its first two astronauts on suborbital hops down the Atlantic Missile Range in 1961, ending up in the Atlantic Ocean barely 15 minutes after launch. These two mis­sions have always been accredited as America’s first two space flights, but in some more recent online listings, while the pilots Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom are accredited with their “suborbital space missions”, they are not listed under manned space flights. Instead, the three-orbit mission of John Glenn in February 1962 is credited as America’s first (orbital) flight in space, so the debate continues—and will probably do so for some time.

The new decade opened with a year of great success and shocking tragedy. The first mission, Apollo 14, continued the success of the series with a third lunar landing, this time at Fra Mauro, the intended site of Apollo 13. The mission confirmed that walking on the Moon for short distances was possible but could be confusing and disorientating without adequate reference points or navigational aids. The astronauts were aided by a two-wheeled rickshaw-style equipment trans­port to ease the load they had to carry, but often found themselves carrying the device when it became stuck in the lunar regolith, which tired them even more.

Six months later, the Apollo 15 astronauts benefited from the first electrically powered manned lunar roving vehicle. This remarkable device significantly increased the capabilities and productivity of the two astronauts on the surface. Meanwhile, in lunar orbit the third crew member participated in an expanded orbital program of science and observations, using equipment and experiments housed in a special instrument bay in the Service Module and from within the Command Module. In the closing months of the Apollo program, NASA was trying to make the most of the three remaining missions to the Moon by flying as much science as possible.

There were three streams to manned space flight operations during the 1990s. First, the main Shuttle program completed a range of independent engineering, science, deployment, and servicing missions. The Russian national Mir program flew a series of long-duration expeditions and a number of shorter visiting missions, some of which were international cooperative ventures. The third element was the Shuttle missions associated with the ISS program, including the series of rendezvous and docking missions with the Mir station and the start of ISS assembly operations.

For the Shuttle program, an important learning curve was climbed by sending orbiters to the Russian Mir station. When Space Shuttle was originally proposed, one of its major objectives was to create and support space station operations. This objective was lost in the early years of Shuttle operations and almost for­gotten well into the 1980s, but by the 1990s the Shuttle finally had an objective and the target it was designed for. As plans to send the Shuttle to a space station were finalized, the 1990s also saw a range of missions flown by the Shuttle which at times seemed very much like cleaning a house: flying long-delayed missions, adapting others to support the new Mission to Planet Earth program; expanding the scope of the Hubble Space Telescope and deploying other great observatories and research satellites; and preparing for the start of ISS construction.

It is amazing now to look back at this period. It was a time of great change in the Soviet Union and a struggle for funding for the new Russian space program. Across the Atlantic, there were similar difficulties in securing a future for the U. S. Freedom station and continuing with Shuttle operations. The unique circum­stances of these events allowed both nations to come together and, with some effort, overcome their differences to launch a true partnership that was extended to include 16 nations, creating what we now know as the International Space Station. The program of cooperation has, in hindsight, allowed the creation of the ISS to run relatively smoothly during the last decade or so, even with further tragic setbacks and operational hurdles to overcome.

The Mir program was the cornerstone for both the Russians and, to an extent, the Americans to progress on to the ISS. One of the most important lessons learned from Mir was adaptability. Being able to adapt flight plans, over­come difficulties, and have the skills, alternative systems, and procedures to keep flying was a testament to the robust nature of the Soviet/Russian hardware, if not its refined technology. Being prepared for the unexpected was a lesson well learned by the Americans during the seven residencies on the station.

During Mir, something new was learned on every expedition; there were often unexpected lessons. It was surprising to some how long the program continued to be operational. Mir, as a space complex, had been continuously manned between September 7, 1989 and August 27, 1999 by a succession of crews for 3,640 days, 22 hours, and 52 minutes. That record has now been surpassed by the ISS, but at the time this was a huge achievement, especially with the difficulties in keeping the station flying at all in its latter years. Often overlooked was the significant amount of science research conducted on the station over a period of 14 years. By 2000, the station had over 240 scientific devices on board with an accumulated mass of over 14 tons. Over 20,000 experiments had been conducted (see Andrew Salmon’s “Firefly” in Mir: The Final Year, edited by Rex Hall, p. 8, British Interplanetary Society, 2001).

It was not smooth sailing by any means. Simply maintaining Mir systems began to consume most of the main crews’ time on board, as did trying to find places to store unwanted equipment. Once cosmonauts began to make return visits to the station, sometimes years apart, they reported that the time spent on repairs had increased significantly over their earlier tour. They found equipment already stored in locations meant for experiments to be set up, which caused valuable experiment time to be lost because of relocating the logistics. International crew members described finding equipment on board the station a nightmare, with conditions on the station reported as detrimental to an efficient working environment. But much of this would prove valuable for the new ISS program. In quantifying the value of their series of missions to Mir and support­ing the seven NASA residencies, John Uri, the NASA mission scientist for Shuttle-Міг, commented in the fall of 1998 that NASA had developed a host of lessons learned from Phase 1 operations at Mir. Of these, he estimated that 80-90% would have useful and direct application for the planned science program on the ISS. The others were somewhat peculiar to performing science on Mir; yet there is always something to be gained. Clearly identifying what not to do can be an equally valuable lesson as learning how to approach and complete a task.

2001-2010: THE EXPANSION YEARS

From the start of the new decade and the new millennium, the emphasis of human space flight focused around the creation and operation of the International Space Station. All but 3 of the 31 Shuttle missions flown in this decade were associated with the assembly and supply of the station. The first non-ISS mission was the fourth Hubble Servicing Mission, SM-3B (STS-109) in 2002. The second conducted ISS-related science, but flew independently of the station. This was the research flight STS-107, which ended tragically on February 1, 2003, with the high-altitude destruction of Columbia just 16 minutes from the planned landing. Following the loss of a second orbiter and crew in 17 years, the decision was made to retire the fleet. Originally, this was expected to be in 2010 but this was subsequently delayed until 2011, after 30 years of flight operations. As a result of the Columbia tragedy and inquiry, there was a review of the remaining payloads and hardware still to be launched to the station and a revised launch manifest was released for the remainder of the program, now with some of the planned elements deleted from the schedule. Once the Shuttle completed its return to flight qualifica­tion in 2006, there were no further serious delays in completing ISS assembly and finally retiring the Shuttle fleet.

In addition to the effort to complete the ISS, there was a move to fly one more service mission (SM-4) to Hubble. This had originally been canceled follow­ing the Columbia loss but was reauthorized after lobbying from the scientific community and the public. This third non-ISS mission of the decade was flown with great success, as STS-125 in 2009. The flight rounded out an impressive series of six missions specifically associated with the telescope but, sadly, the end-of – mission return to Earth on board a shuttle for the Hubble, which was on the manifest for about 2013 prior to the loss of Columbia, had to be abandoned. Had this been possible, a significant amount of information could have been gained from studying the telescope’s physical structure after over 20 years in orbit, prior to displaying the historic spacecraft in a museum for public viewing.

For the Russians during the first decade of the new millennium all effort was focused on supporting ISS operations, with the slow expansion of the Russian segment but regular resupply via Progress unmanned freighters. The venerable Soyuz was still in service at the end of the decade and in a new variant, the Soyuz TMA-M. This was the fifth major upgrade to warrant a separate designation. Though other vehicles have often been proposed by the Russians as Soyuz replacements, the almost 50-year-old design remains the primary crew ferry and rescue vehicle. In the period of 2003-2006, while the Shuttle was grounded or being requalified for operational flight, only the Soyuz was able to ferry crews to and from the station. It enabled the station to continue to be manned and oper­ated, albeit with a reduced two-person caretaker crew. In hindsight the option taken in the early 1990s to include Soyuz in the program has been, with the grounding and eventual retirement of the Shuttle, a wise one and has saved the ISS program until something else replaces the Shuttle orbiter to take American astronauts into orbit.

There are moments in human history that define significant change and development. One of the more positive moments occurred on October 4, 1957. On that day, the world’s first artificial satellite was placed into Earth orbit, signifying the dawn of what became known as the “space age”. That defining moment, when Sputnik attained a successful orbital insertion, finally unlocked the age-old secret of flight beyond the confines of our planet and brought human dreams, stories, and plans to explore “space” closer to fruition and reality. The rapid pace of advancement has become a feature of space exploration since that date. After those centuries of hopes and desires, another significant development occurred but a short two and one half years later.

Over a decade later, a third suborbital trajectory was inadvertently flown during an aborted Soyuz launch in April 1975. In this case, a spent stage of the R-7 launch vehicle failed to separate cleanly and caused the remaining launch vehicle to veer off course, triggering an abort just a few minutes into the mission before completing an emergency parachute recovery just over 21 minutes after launch. As a result of the failure, the Soviets did not assign an official Soyuz designation to the flight (it should have become Soyuz 18). Instead, they termed the event “the April 5 anomaly”. In the West, this “mission” is often referred to as Soyuz 18-1, to distinguish it from the successful replacement Soyuz 18 mission flown with a

different crew a few weeks later. As the aborted flight attained a peak altitude of 119 miles (192 km) it was officially credited as a space flight in progress, becoming the highest altitude suborbital trajectory to date.

In September 1983, a second Soyuz launch was aborted seconds before release from the pad when the carrier rocket suddenly exploded. The emergency escape rocket fired and propelled the crew to a safe, if rapid recovery five minutes later. As the maximum altitude attained was just a few thousand feet and the “launch” had not taken place, this did not become an accredited space flight or official “mission”. It was an unwelcome and surprising experience. In July 1985, Shuttle mission 51F suffered a main engine failure which threatened its ascent to orbit. Fortunately, sufficient velocity and altitude had been attained at the time of the failure and the loss of the engine could be compensated by those remaining. Abort-To-Orbit (ATO) mode was followed, resulting in a lower-than-planned Earth orbit which was modified over the next few days.

The question of when a space flight is not credited as a flight into space, but is instead deemed a mission in progress, was demonstrated tragically in January 1986 with the STS-51L mission and the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger and its crew of seven. The vehicle exploded just 73 seconds after leaving the pad at an altitude of 14,020 m (45,997 ft.), far below the recognized altitude to be termed a true space flight. However, in respect to the lost crew, NASA credited them post­humously with a mission duration of 1 minute 13 seconds to the point of the disaster and officially termed the ill-fated flight a “space mission in progress”.

This same classification was attributed to the STS-107 mission in February 2003, when that vehicle and its crew of seven were lost during a high-altitude breakup just 16 minutes from the planned landing in Florida. Again as a mark of respect to the crew, they were credited a mission duration to the point of loss of signal. Unlike STS-51L, they had completed a 16-day flight and were coming home from orbit when disaster struck. In most records of space flight missions, the flights of Soyuz 18-1 and STS-51L tend to be listed as attempted orbital mis­sions which fell short of that goal during flight. Had all gone well, they would have both attained sufficient velocity to have been accredited as true orbital space flights.

In contrast, the Soviet program was not going well. All their effort for manned operations was now diverted to creating a space station. The objectives of this program were, typically, not forthcoming from the secretive Soviets, and would not be for some years. However, it was subsequently revealed by Soviet space watchers that there would be two distinctly separate space station programs, either civilian and scientific in nature or more military in intent, which would both be run under one heading, called “Salyut” to help mask the clandestine nature of the military stations.

In April 1971, as part of the celebrations for the 10th anniversary of the Gagarin flight, the first Salyut was launched. Tragically, the first man in space had not lived to see the tribute, having been killed in a plane crash in March 1968 at the age of 34. He had never had the opportunity to return to orbit. The first Salyut was a compromise between the DOS scientific stations (identified later as “civilian” in the West) planned by OKB-1 and the Almaz (“Diamond”) military – focused stations designed by OKB-52. It was plagued by difficulties from the start. The first crew (Soyuz 10), launched a few days after the Salyut, could not complete a hard docking and returned after only two days in space. Then the second crew was grounded when one of them failed a medical, so their intended mission was flown by the backup crew. Launched as Soyuz 11, this replacement crew completed a challenging 21 days on board the station but tragically died during the recovery phase due to a faulty air equalization valve.

As a result, the Soviet manned program was grounded and a planned third visit to the Salyut canceled. It would be two years before the next Soyuz crew entered orbit to test the improvements to the ferry craft and three years before a

cosmonaut crew would enter another Salyut in orbit. During this period, the Americans completed both the Apollo program and the three Skylab program manned missions, forging ahead in both lunar and space station experiences much to the chagrin of the Soviets.

The final Apollo missions to the Moon were flown in 1972. Apollo 16 and 17 completed the J-series of scientific missions to more geologically challenging sites, maximizing the variety of samples retrieved from the six landing sites. The Apollo program was a highly successful series and, even with the Apollo 13 aborted landing, significant experience and confidence was gained in sending crews out to the Moon and from performing the first EVAs on the surface of another celestial body. Unfortunately, a number of factors contributed to the closure of the program, which prevented the Americans from expanding upon this experience and contributed to the diversion of hardware, funds, and investment elsewhere. Most notably, this was to the planned Space Shuttle program, which had been authorized in January 1972 and approved in April that year while the Apollo 16 astronauts were exploring the Moon.

Just over a decade after manned space flight had become possible, the emphasis was already changing. No longer was it a race to achieve leadership at the Moon. Now, a concerted effort to look back at Earth began to develop and with it, hopefully, the creation of economical access to and from Earth orbit, with additional emphasis on sustained and extended operations in low Earth orbit. When Apollo stopped flying to the Moon in December 1972, no one really thought it would be over 35 years before we would even consider going back there seriously with a new program, and probably over 50 years before we finally make it.