Category Manned Spaceflight Log II—2006-2012

Despite no clear commitment to return to the Moon or venture to Mars, there are a number of committed individuals and groups who have produced countless plans and studies for deep-space exploration, hoping for the day when these plans turn into reality. Aside from a return to the Moon, human exploration of Mars and visits to far-flung asteroids, another target for future human exploration often features in these plans—the so-called “gravity parking sites” in space. Called Lagrange (or Lagrangian) points, these are great expanses of space at which the gravitational forces of the Sun and the Earth are equalized, so any spacecraft placed there could remain in place with little effort. Within the Earth-Moon system there are five such points. They are far enough away from the Sun or planetary bodies that they make ideal places to situate observation platforms,

such as ultra-cold telescopes that measure temperature fluctuations in space. Lagrange points are found around other planets and could be used to site remote operations centers intended to control robotic vehicles to explore the less hospitable places in the solar system more easily.

The L2 point is about 1 million kilometers from Earth and is the target location for the James Webb (infrared) Space Telescope, the replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope. Placing the spacecraft at this point makes servicing from Earth extremely difficult, and until the appearance of Orion or a similar spacecraft it will be impossible for several years to come. Once we have the capability to send crews to these points, they will be able to service and repair the range of telescopes currently being planned to be located there, extending their useful life and expand­ing their science program as in the case of Hubble. It may also be possible to perform construction tasks with large space structures or spacecraft at these points before sending them to the distant reaches of the solar system.

These locations could provide useful preparation points for trips to Mars and for controlling automated spacecraft on the Moon—a sort of Mission Control in space. With the development of more artificial intelligence spacecraft, operating a control room from deeper into space where communications would be much quicker would clearly be more advantageous than waiting for signals sent between

Earth and Mars that would need a 40 min round trip. As Gemini was a step for Apollo to the Moon, perhaps Lagrange points will be a stepping stone to deep-space human exploration missions.

2012-037A July 15, 2012

Pad 1, Site 5, Baikonur Cosmodrome, Republic of

Kazakhstan

November 19, 2012

Northern Kazakhstan landing zone (near to the town of Arkalyk)

Soyuz-FG (R-7) (serial number Л15000-042),

Soyuz TMA-05M (serial number 706)

126 da 23 h 13 min 27 s Agat

ISS resident crew transport (ISS-32/33), Soyuz 31S

Flight crew

MALENCHENKO, Yuri Ivanovich, 50, Russian Federation Air Force, RSA ISS-32/33 flight engineer, Soyuz TMA-M commander; fifth mission Previous missions-. Soyuz TM-19 (1994), STS-101 (2000), Soyuz TMA-2 (2003), Soyuz TMA-11 (2007)

WILLIAMS, Sunita Lyn, 46, NASA, U. S.A., ISS-32 flight engineer, ISS-33 commander, Soyuz TMA-M flight engineer, second mission Previous mission-. STS-116/ISS/STS-117 (2006/2007)

HOSHIDE, Akihiko, 43, JAXA, (Japanese) ISS-32/33 flight engineer, Soyuz TMA-M flight engineer, second mission Previous mission-. STS-124 (2008)

Flight log

In the Expedition 33 preflight Mission Summary, the flight was described as “action-packed”, including the arrival of the first commercial resupply mission and research across a variety of experiments including muscle atrophy. Expedition 33 would continue to expand the research program, looking into the radiation levels aboard the outpost and the effects of microgravity on the human spinal cord. The Agricultural Camera would investigate dynamic processes on Earth (such as melting glaciers), seasonal changes, and how the ecosystem is affected by human intervention. The crew experiment program would encompass further experiments in human research, biological and physical sciences, development of new technologies, Earth observations and education.

Calling the expedition “action-packed” may have been stretching the description a little at the start, but the crew was certainly never at a loss for

things to occupy their time. With difficulties encountered on their first EVA, there was soon plenty of unplanned “action” for them to deal with. Their mission emblem description explained that the work on the ISS was “heading into the future”. Now that the space station was almost complete and the Shuttle retired, Expedition 33 was part of the push for new goals in space, even though it was not exactly clear where those goals were heading.

The launch occurred on the 37th anniversary of the launch of Soyuz 19 and Apollo 18 under the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the first joint U. S.S. R./U. S. manned space flight program. This was not lost on the crew or officials recalling the event in their pre and postlaunch speeches. The arrival at the space station on July 17 was also exactly 37 years after the docking of Soyuz and Apollo and gave rise to further celebrations and comments on how far the joint programs had progressed since that time. The Soyuz TMA-05M spacecraft was docked success­fully with the Rassvet MRM1 module and, after the hatch opening, normal safety briefings, and welcoming ceremonies, the three new crew members were soon unloading equipment from the Soyuz, powering down their spacecraft, and getting up to speed on the various science and research activities across the station.

For most of their first two months on board the station, the trio were designated flight engineers as part of the ISS-32 Expedition. They were involved with activities associated with the Progress, HTV, and ATV resupply craft, as well as various science activities and general housekeeping duties. As August pro­gressed, Malenchenko assisted Padalka on a Russian segment EVA from Pirs (August 20), while Williams and Hoshide prepared for their own space walk from the Quest airlock using U. S. EMU suits.

That EVA (August 30, 8h 17 min) became the third longest space walk in history. The main objective of the EVA was to install a new Main Bus Switching Unit (MBSU) to the SO truss segment. This unit was one of four which routed electricity from the solar arrays on the truss to the station. After removing the failed unit, the astronauts found it difficult to install its replacement, chiefly because securing the bolts proved to be much harder than anticipated. Indeed, they could not secure one particularly stubborn bolt, so they used a long-duration tie down tether to secure the unit temporarily until a second EVA could be undertaken to finish the task. Unfortunately, with the MBSU out of service and two arrays out of action, the power available on the ISS was reduced by 25%. The EVA crew was able to connect one of two power cables in preparation for the arrival of the new Russian module, but the replacement of a camera on Canadarm2 also had to be postponed. Ironically, an unconnected drop-off of the station’s power system on September 1 meant that a third panel went off-line, reducing the station to five out of eight power channels for the first time in several years. The second EVA, on September 5 (6 h 28 min) was more successful, with the crew able to secure the MBSU and install the Canadarm2 camera.

On September 15, the Altair ISS-32 crew handed over command of the station to the Agat ISS-33 crew shortly before departing the station and ending their 125-day mission. Once again, the resident crew compliment was down to just three. Commander Sunita Williams became only the second female station expedition commander in 12 years and over 30 expeditions. The formal start of ISS-33 operations occurred when Soyuz TMA-04M undocked from the station to begin their return to Earth.

The handover occurred on the same weekend that Williams became the first person to complete a triathlon in space. After “participating” in the Boston Marathon during her first stay on the station in April 2008, Williams “participated” in the Nautica Malibu Triathlon, held in Southern California on September 16. Orbiting some 240 miles (386 km) above the other competitors, she used special exercise equipment designed to keep astronauts fit during their mission and specially formulated to simulate the triathlon experience in space. Using a treadmill and stationary bike, she ran for 4 miles and cycled for 18 miles. To simulate “swimming”, Williams used the Advanced Resistive Exerciser Device (ARED), which allowed her to complete weightlifting and resistance exercises that approximated swimming in microgravity for “half a mile”. Her total time taken for the three disciplines was 1 hour 48 minutes 33 seconds.

The science work gathered pace for the crew through the rest of the month. Other tasks included preparing ATV-3 for undocking from the station. This was accomplished on September 28, with the vessel completing its destructive descent in the atmosphere on October 4. On October 10, the SpaceX Dragon CRS-1 cargo ship (which had launched on October 7) was grasped by the station’s RMS and attached to the Harmony Node, making it the first operational commercial resup­ply mission to arrive at the space station. On board were 8821b (400 kg) of cargo to replenish supplies at the station. The crew loaded about 1,6001b (726 kg) of cargo for return to Earth when the Dragon spacecraft detached from the station on October 28. It splashed down in the Pacific about six hours after undocking.

The next event was the arrival, on October 25, of the other three Expedition 33 crew members on board Soyuz TMA-6M. They were to take over from Wil­liams and her colleagues in November and continue as the Expedition 34 trio for the remainder of the year. With the new crew safely docked and integrated into the main residency program the emphasis shifted to preparations for the next EVA planned for November 1. On this EVA Sunita Williams and Akihiko Hoshide were allocated 6 hours and 30 minutes to repair an ammonia leak on one of the station’s port side radiators. The ammonia, which is circulated through the external thermal control system of the orbital facility, is used to cool the electronics and other systems.

The November 1 EVA (designated U. S. EVA-20) performed by Williams and Hoshide was accomplished in 6h 38 min accomplishing all the assigned and one get-ahead tasks. The pair completed both parts of the EAS (Early Ammonia System) jumper reconfiguration; demated the PVR 2B FQDC (Photovoltaic Radiator Flight Quick Disconnect Coupling); removed the cover from the spare TTCR (Trailing Thermal Control Radiator), then released and deployed the device. They also took documentary photography of the IEA (Integrated Equip­ment Assembly) and the PVR, as well as conducting the get-ahead task of inspecting the port SARJ (Solar Array Joint).

With the EVA completed the “Agat” trio prepared to hand over command of the station to the “Kazbek” crew and end their residency. Formal handover of the command of the ISS from Williams to Kevin Ford took place on November 17. The official ending of the ISS-33 phase and start of the ISS-34 phase took place on

November 19 with the undocking of Soyuz TMA-05M. The residency had accumulated 127 day in space with approximately 60 days spent as part of the ISS-32 expedition and then 63 days as the ISS-33 expedition.

Milestones

289th manned space flight 120th Russian manned space flight 112th manned Soyuz 31st ISS Soyuz mission (31S)

5th Soyuz TMA-M flight 32/33rd ISS resident crew

Williams celebrated her 47th birthday in space (September 19)

Williams becomes only the second female ISS expedition commander Williams also surpasses Whitson’s EVA record for a female astronaut setting a new cumulative EVA record of 50 h 40 min (seven EVAs)

Williams becomes the first person to complete a “triathlon” in space’ on September 16, adding the achievement to her space marathon run completed in April 2008

It was just over five decades ago that a young Soviet air force pilot was sitting strapped to an ejection seat in the confined compartment of a new type of vehicle called a spacecraft. After a rocket-boosted flight of a few minutes, he found himself high above the Earth in the vacuum of space and for just one orbit, becoming the only living human not to be on Earth or within its atmosphere. With this short mission, Yuri Gagarin became history’s first explorer of the cosmos. In the decades since that bold leap, over 500 individuals have followed in his trail, creating news pages in history along the way.

Sadly over the past five decades, we have lost many of the pioneers from the early days of the space program, both those who made the journey from Earth and those who made such missions possible, from administrators and managers, to flight controllers, launch technicians, spacecraft designers and engineers, and so many more. As these pages were being written, two more pioneers were lost in the space of one month: on July 23, 2012, Sally Ride, the first American woman to fly in space, lost her battle with cancer at the age of 61. This was followed on August 25 by the death of Neil Armstrong, the first man to step on to the Moon, follow­ing complications after heart surgery at the age of 82. Their contribution, along with their colleagues and fellow workers in the first 50 years of the global space program, will never be forgotten. No matter how far humans may venture or what marvels they may encounter in the exploration of space, their achievements will have been built upon the foundations laid by pioneers such as these. The exploits of those who created and flew the first missions from Earth are recounted in documents such as this log.

Research conducted over many years indicates that using a semi-ballistic, suborbital trajectory may be a future possibility for traveling between the United States and Europe in just one hour, or to Australia in less than two hours. At present this is being investigated for unmanned, courier, business, or for military quick-response applications rather than passenger travel, due to the high costs envisaged. In theory future transportation systems could develop suborbital “space-lines” carrying 50 passengers from Europe to Australia in 90 minutes or 100 passengers to California in an hour. A distant dream today, perhaps, but the thought of such hypersonic suborbital spaceplanes means that you could have breakfast in London, lunch on the beach in California or Australia, time for shop­ping and back home to catch an evening show! Of course the price of such a trip and what it would do to the jet lag effect would put all but the very rich, or higher society, off such a regular adventure, but eventually…

In reviewing five decades of manned space flight operations, it is difficult to define any specific decade as a singular era, but in general the 1960s could be termed the pioneering decade; the 1970s the decade of ascending learning curve; the 1980s the reality decade; the 1990s the decade of application; and the 2000s perhaps a decade of expansion. What lies ahead is for the pages of history.

Connections

The physical quest for space flight can be traced back to the era of stratospheric balloon ascents during the early decades of the 20th century. This was followed by aviation pioneers in their quest for speed, height, duration, and eventually the international drive to break the sound barrier and pushing the limits of rocket aircraft propulsion. All of these linked steps led up to the dawn of human space flight operations. What is less often considered are the significant, but connected developments in other areas of science, technology, medicine, and human endeavor, including of course military advancements, which have all contributed to applications now used in space exploration. There is often discussion about the benefits of space flight and the spin-offs from the investment and technology devel­oped, but this works both ways. There are technologies and procedures which

have been incorporated into the space program which have filtered down to improve aspects of fife here on the ground.

Lessons learned from other endeavors are crucial to developing the next steps in space. For example, underwater exploration is currently being used to prepare astronauts for flights on the Space Station and in supporting simulations related to future explorations of the asteroids, the Moon, and Mars. Other extreme environment operations are to be found in the Arctic and Antarctic regions of Earth, in long-duration isolation chamber experiments (such as the recent Mars 500 experiment) and even experience from what are now termed extreme sports.

The history of polar exploration has analogues in long-duration space flight, and studies of the close confines of living and working in nuclear submarines, submerged for days or weeks in isolated environments under operational and stressful situations, have also been used to evaluate crew behavior and perform­ance on programs such as the Space Station. This work, including that being conducted by expedition crews on the ISS, will have direct application for our eventual return to the Moon and out to Mars, where long-term research bases will have to be staffed and operated remotely from our planet by self-reliant crews, with support from Earth coming in an advisory or backup role.

We are at a key point in human space flight history. After 50 years, we can no longer consider ourselves to be pioneering. It is now time to homestead space and to expand our horizons, creating a reliable, economical, and sustainable infrastruc­ture to move away from Earth, not only to explore new planets, moons, and asteroids but also to safely exploit their resources. We must still monitor our own world to ensure its survival and get the best use from its finite resources and we must discover how to balance our need for those resources with protection of the natural environment to ensure we can continue to live here. If we learn these lessons here on Earth, we can apply them to other worlds with confidence and perhaps a clear conscience.

Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders once said that the most valuable return from going to the Moon was to discover Earth. In expanding our knowledge and understanding of our own planet, we can put our best efforts into exploring new worlds. The last five decades have created the foundations for a concerted inter­national effort to move out into the cosmos. Never again can we look up at the night sky and wonder what it would actually be like to go there, because we have done that. We just need to keep going a little farther.

Hindsight is a wonderful way to interpret past events and experiences and to think how things could have been done better or differently. It is quite easy to look back and wonder what might have been if certain events had or had not happened or if fate had intervened a different way. In this context, you could ponder endlessly what would have happened if the Americans had launched the first satellite; if the Soviets had landed on the Moon before the Americans; if Apollo had not been canceled in 1972; if the Shuttle had been authorized with its liquid-fueled manned booster; if Buran had become operational; if a Moon base and 50-man space station had been authorized; and so on. That small word “if” could lead to countless such speculations but can never affect what actually happened.

In reality, as humans we can only do our best and hope we get it right. In space flight, “our best” has yielded some spectacular achievements over the past half a century. Whether the decisions made were the right decisions is irrelevant and unchangeable, but they can be learned from for such decisions in the future. Here, we can only briefly summarize the achievements and decisions of these first five decades, to provide an awareness of how we arrived at this point in space exploration and allow us to decide where to go next.

The 1980s were termed the reality years for good reason, for both the Soviets and Americans. The Soviets, despite great success with their Salyut and Mir programs,

were suffering from lack of funding to expand the program as planned. An improved station, Mir 2, was struggling for funding even to be built; Buran had flown successfully, proving the concept, but was also unable to attract funds to continue. On top of all this, the country itself was under extreme pressure both internally and externally to change and reform. The surprising and sudden demise of communism towards the end of the decade in Eastern Europe—and the even­tual breakup of the U. S.S. R.—was a major catalyst with global repercussions, and the pride of Soviet achievement—the Soviet space program—suffered. If it was to survive, the program would have to find other avenues of funding, much to the frustration of the older leadership in the design bureaus, the corridors of the Kremlin, and the top brass in the military. For a while, the program struggled on, but talks were in hand to help restore its pride and ensure its survival through the final decade of the century and beyond.

For NASA, the Shuttle was not delivering what was promised. The launch costs could not be lowered and the USAF had backed out of ordering their own orbiters and operating them from California. Commercial applications that took advantage of the unique characteristics of both the microgravity environment and the Shuttle transportation system were few and far between. It was becoming harder to keep the Shuttle flying and far from routine to launch them on time. The Challenger accident remained a painful memory.

On the positive side, as well as some remarkable flight operations once the vehicle attained orbit, significant lessons were learned and experience gained from

repeated ground turnaround, from planning to processing, launching, and recov­ery to postflight analysis of the fleet of vehicles. A similar learning curve came from flying the dozens of payloads and experiments that the fleet did carry, from the smallest school experiment to complex Spacelab payloads.

Hovering in the background of all this was the Freedom space station program, which was slowly gaining momentum following its 1984 authorization. Unfortunately, it was also gaining in size, mass, complexity, and cost. The new decade would once again signal changes, both on Earth and for operations in its orbit.

2009-015A March 26, 2009

Pad 1, Site 5, Baikonur Cosmodrome, Republic of

Kazakhstan

October 11, 2009

Near the town of Arkalyk, Republic of Kazakhstan Soyuz-FG (serial number Ю15000-027),

Soyuz TMA (serial number 224)

198 da 16 h 42 min 22 s (ISS-19/20)

12 da 19 h 25 min 52 s (Simonyi)

Altair

ISS resident crew transport (18S), ISS-19/20 research program, visiting crew 16 program

Flight Crew

PADALKA, Gennady Ivanovich, 50, Russian Federation Air Force, RSA Soyuz TMA and ISS commander, third mission

Previous missions: Soyuz TM-28/Mir 26 (1998/1999), TMA-4/ISS-9 (2004) BARRATT, Michael Reed, 49, Civilian, NASA Soyuz TMA and ISS flight engineer 1

SIMONYI, Charles, 60, civilian, U. S.A., space flight participant, second mission Previous mission: TMA10/TMA9 (2007)

ISS resident crew (Shuttle) exchanges

WAKATA, Koichi, 45, civilian (Japanese), JAXA ISS flight engineer KOPRA, Timothy Lennart, 46, U. S. Army, NASA ISS flight engineer (up STS-127, down STS-128)

STOTT, Nicole Maria Passano, 46, civilian, NASA ISS flight engineer (up STS-128, down STS-129)

Flight log

By the spring of 2009, the station was ready for an increase in the permanent crewing from three to six. It had been decided to overlap main crews between expeditions, to help ease the strain on the station’s limited resources while the final Shuttle assembly missions were flown. The plan was to launch a main crew to the station aboard Soyuz ferry craft in two teams of three. One knock-on effect of this would be the serious restriction of the availability of spare Soyuz seats for fare-paying individuals (the space flight participants) for some time. Any available

seats would now be filled by representatives of the ISS partners (NASA, RSA, CSA, ESA, and JAXA).

Overlapping these crews meant that when the first crew of three returned, there would be a period when only a three-person (skeleton) crew would be in residency on the station until the next trio arrived to restore the crew to six. For brief periods, the ISS could support three Soyuz craft with nine crew members, but not for prolonged periods. In practice, Crew “A” would be joined by Crew “B” to create Residency “X”. Once Crew “A” departed, crew “B” would continue alone as Residency “Y” until they were joined by Crew “C”. When Crew “B” returned, crew “C” would assume the role of Residency “Z”, and so on. The crew of TMA-14 would complete the first move in this new system, along with the next crew on TMA-15, creating the residencies ISS-19 and ISS-20 (or ISS-19/20). The lead crew on any station expedition would be known as ISS “X” Prime.

Pioneering this change and in command of the TMA-14, as well as ISS-19/20, was veteran Mir and ISS cosmonaut Gennady Padalka. Accompanying him was NASA rookie flight engineer Michael Barratt and space flight participant Charles Simonyi on his second visit to the ISS. This was a first for a space flight participant. Simonyi had previously visited the station two years before and this time would complete a 13-day flight (at a reportedly higher price than his first visit) before returning with the ISS-18 cosmonauts in TMA-13. During his second residency, Simonyi conducted a small program of experiments which included photography, a radiation safety experiment, ham radio, and various symbolic activities. Some of these activities were in connection with ESA, the Hungarian Space Office (Simonyi being a Hungarian-born, naturalized U. S. citizen), and the Russian Space Agency. On April 8, 2009 Simonyi and the outgoing ISS-18 crew undocked from ISS and landed safely.

Padalka and Barratt officially joined Japanese astronaut Wakata (already on board the station) as resident crew members on April 2. This trio became ISS-19 and would also assume the lead role for ISS-20 from May until their departure in October. There were still two further Shuttle partial crew exchanges to come after Wakata (who would be followed by Timothy Kopra and then Nicole Stott), so three-person Soyuz crewing would not actually begin until the end of 2009. ISS-19 was an expedition in a period of transition at the station after a decade of assembly. It was also a clear demonstration of the program’s increased capabilities in manpower research and the often overlooked level of ground support across the globe.

With all the main laboratory facihties up and running, the research programs could also now step up. The Russian program for ISS-19/20 would see 330 ses­sions for 42 experiments, including four new research studies. The program encompassed life sciences, geographical research, Earth resources, biotechnology, technical research, cosmic ray research, education and space technology studies, and contract activities. Most of this research would be conducted by Padalka (in preffight planning this amounted to 164 hours), while Barratt focused on U. S. segment experiments. During the ISS-20 phase of his mission, ISS-20/21 flight engineer Romanenko would complete a further planned 160 hours of Russian segment science. In addition, NASA reported 98 experiments in human research, technology development, observations of the Earth, educational activities, and biological and physical sciences. Of these, 39 were new investigations, with 28 others originating from Europe, 16 from Japan, and 5 from Canada. There were 10 ongoing investigations from earlier expeditions.

One of the investigations highlighted by the world’s media were the studies in recycling urine into drinking water, clearly not one of the more glamorous aspects of a space explorer’s role. After receiving the all clear from ground tests on reclaimed water samples on May 20, a milestone was reached on board the station when ISS-19 crew members drank reclaimed and purified water from the Water Recovery System.

On May 29, 2009, the much anticipated transition from a three to a six-person crew was finally realized with the docking of TMA-15. On board were Belgian Frank De Winne (ESA), Russian Roman Romanenko (son of Salyut 6/Mir cosmonaut Yuri Romanenko), and Canadian Robert Thirsk. For the first time, each of the primary participants (Russia, U. S.A., Europe, Canada, and Japan) were represented in the resident crewing. Long in planning, the symbolic nature of the first six-person crew being comprised of crew members from the major ISS partners was not lost on the international agencies or world’s media.

The docking and transfer into the ISS of the new crew of TMA-15 signaled the official end of the ISS-19 residency. The three ISS-19 crew members remained on board, but now ISS-19 officially became ISS-20. It would remain so until shortly before the return of Padalka and Barrett in October, together with the final space flight participant who was scheduled to arrive on Soyuz TMA-16 with the ISS-20/21 crew.

The makeup of the expanded international resident team on station soon changed, however, with the exchange of crew members on Shuttle. In July, Wakata was replaced by Kopra during STS-127, which also delivered the next element of the Kibo laboratory. Kopra remained on station for just over a month until August, when STS-128 delivered his replacement, Nicole Stott. Stott in turn remained on board until November when she returned on STS-129. She was the final Shuttle-transported station resident crew member.

During the ISS-19 phase, no EYAs were accomplished by the resident crew. However, during ISS-20 Padalka and Barratt completed two short excursions totaling 5 hours 6 minutes wearing the new improved Orlan-MK suits. The first of these (June 5, 4h 54 min) featured additional preparations for the arrival at the Zvezda Service Module of the Mini Research Module-2. During the EVA, Wakata remained inside Zvezda, allowing access to TMA-14 which was docked with the module’s rear port. In the event of an emergency, the EVA crew could have proceeded to the Soyuz if they had been unable to reenter Pirs. Romanenko, De Winne, and Thirsk remained in the American segment close to TMA-15 on Zarya. Fortunately, all went well and these well-planned and practiced contingency procedures were not required.

The second activity, on June 10, was a 12 min intravehicular activity (IVA, crew activity while wearing a spacesuit inside an unpressurized spacecraft)—the first on station since 2001. During this IVA, Padalka and Barratt depressurized the Zvezda Node to relocate a conical docking cover over the zenith port so that the MRM-2 could dock there. Later, both Kopra and Stott would assist with Shuttle-based assembly EVAs from the Quest airlock during STS-127 and STS-128. These were not classed as part of the residency EVA program.

TMA-14 was moved on July 2 from the rear port of Zvezda to the recently vacated (by the departing Progress M-02M) port of Pirs. This freed up the Zvezda port for Progress M-67, which would be used to reboost the altitude of the complex. The other three crew members remained in the ISS during the Soyuz relocation operation, which took about 26 minutes, after which the Soyuz crew reentered the station. With half the crew remaining inside, partial shutdown of the station was no longer required, saving both crew time and valuable experiment operating time.

This operation was followed by the arrival of the STS-127 mission (July 15­31) and later STS-128 (August 29-September 12). Another milestone was the arrival of the first Japanese HTV transfer vehicle on September 18, which was grappled by the station’s RMS. Its six tons of cargo would be transferred by means of the station’s robotic arms later.

In late September, the two ISS-20/21 crew members (Maxim Suraev and Jeff Williams) arrived with Canadian Space Tourist Guy Laliberte aboard Soyuz TMA 16. For a short time, the ISS included eight resident and one visiting crew member. On October 9, the formal change-of-command ceremony took place, with

Padalka handing over the reins to DeWinne. On October 11, Padalka, Barratt, and Laliberte transferred to TMA-14, undocked, and landed a few hours later. This expedition had seen a major milestone achieved in ISS operations and a highly successful period of activity, focused more on science than construction.

ISS-19/20 had logged almost 199 days in flight, of which 197 had been aboard the space station. The ISS-19 formal residency (April 2-May 29) lasted 57 days, while the ISS-20 residency (May 29-October 9) had logged 133 days, totaling 190 days of combined station command time for ISS-19/20.

Milestones

265th manned space flight 107th Russian manned space flight 100 th manned Soyuz flight 14th manned Soyuz TMA mission 18th ISS Soyuz mission (18S)

16th ISS Soyuz visiting mission 19/20th SS resident crew First ISS IVA in Zvezda node since 2001 First flight of Japanese HTV First ISS six-person residency (ISS-20)

Final planned three-person full resident crew (ISS-19)

First time representative from main ISS partners are represented on resident crew (NASA, RSA, ESA, CSA, JAXA)

Simonyi was the first space tourist to fly twice Final crew transfers via Shuttle (Wakata, Kopra, Stott)

Padalka celebrates his 51st birthday in space (June 21)

Flight crew

ALTMAN, Scott Douglas, 49, Captain USN (Retd.), NASA commander, fourth mission

Previous missions: STS-90 (1998), STS-106 (2000), STS-109 (2002) JOHNSON, Gregory Carl, 54, Captain USN (Retd.), NASA pilot GOOD, Michael Timothy, 45, Colonel USAF, NASA mission specialist 1 McARTHUR, Katherine Megan, 37, civilian, NASA mission specialist 2 GRUNSFELD, John Mace, 49, civilian, NASA mission specialist 3, fifth mission

Previous missions: STS-67 (1995), STS-81 (1997), STS-103 (1999), STS-109

(2002)

MASSIMINO, Michael James, 46, civilian, NASA mission specialist 4, second mission

Previous mission-. STS-109 (2002)

FEUSTEL, Andrew Jay, 43, civihan, NASA mission specialist 5

Flight log

STS-125 was the fifth and final servicing mission (SM) to the Hubble Space Telescope. It was also the sixth Shuttle mission devoted to the telescope’s orbital operations since 1990. The mission, as originally planned, was canceled in the wake of the 2003 Columbia tragedy, but was reinstated following a public and scientific lobby to fly one more Hubble-related mission. For space station Shuttle missions following the loss of Columbia, a rescue vehicle was prepared (normally as part of the next mission’s processing) and the station could be used as a safe haven until a rescue flight could be launched. As this was not a space station related mission and would be flying in a different orbit, the ISS was not an option. Instead, a second Shuttle was prepared on an adjoining pad as a potential rescue vehicle. When the Hubble flight was delayed and rescheduled, so too was

the rescue mission amended accordingly. The Shuttle Endeavour served as the backup rescue vehicle in a mission designated STS-400 (with a four-person crew). It remained on Pad 39B while STS-125 was in space, but once Atlantis was cleared for Earth return, Endeavour reverted to ISS mission preparations.

Atlantis preparations began in the OPF on February 20, 2008. The orbiter was subsequently moved across to the VAB on August 22 that year and the mated stack rolled out to Pad 39A on September 4, 2008. The mission was origin­ally scheduled for October 2008, but was changed to February 2009 when the system that transfers science data from the orbital observatory to Earth malfunc­tioned. The mission was postponed again when delivery of a second data-handling unit to the Cape was delayed. This resulted in the rescheduled launch date of May 2009.

Prior to the rendezvous with Hubble, a thorough inspection of the Shuttle’s heat shield was performed using the RMS. The close-up imagery of the orbiter’s surfaces was relayed to MCC for analysis by specialist teams on the ground. During this analysis, the Mission Management Team (MMT) noted an area of damage on the forward part of Atlantis where the wing blends into the fuselage. This was apparently minor damage but additional expert analysis was still con­ducted to make sure. It was subsequently decided by the MMT that the thermal covering of Atlantis was indeed safe for reentry at the end of the mission.

Atlantis was guided by Altman, assisted by Good and the rest of the crew, to within 50 ft (15.2m) of Hubble on May 13. The telescope was grappled by the

RMS (controlled by McArthur) without incident and then maneuvered into a Flight Support System (FSS) maintenance platform in the orbiter payload bay. In addition to supporting Hubble, this platform would provide power for thermal control during the service period while aboard the orbiter.

Five EVAs, totaling 36 hours 56 minutes, were conducted, achieving all of the mission’s objectives. Two of them went into the record books as the sixth and eighth longest EVAs in history. Two new instruments were installed on the telescope and a further two repaired, restoring them to operational life. The EVA crew also replaced gyroscopes and batteries as well as installing new thermal insu­lation panels for protection in orbit. Grunsfeld and Feustel logged three space walks each, totaling 20 hours 58 minutes, while Good and Massimino completed two EVAs each totaling 15 hours 58 minutes.

During the first EVA (May 14, 7h 20 min), Grunsfeld and Feustel replaced the Science Instrument Command and Data Handling Unit (SIC&DHU) and installed the Wide Field Camera 3. Grunsfeld installed the soft capture mechanism for future (though not yet planned) service missions, which would be post-Shuttle retirement. Meanwhile Feustel installed two latches over center kits in order to ease the opening and closing of the large access doors on the telescope. On the second EVA (May 15, 7h 56 min), Good and Massimino replaced three rate­sensing units which contained two gyroscopes each. Unfortunately, one of the replacement units would not fit, so a spare was used instead. The two astronauts also replaced a battery module from Bay 2 on the telescope.

The Corrective Optical Space Telescope Axial Replacement (COSTAR) was removed by Grunsfeld and Feustel on EVA 3 (May 16, 6 h 36 min). This had been installed during the first Hubble Service Mission in December 1993 to correct and refine the image generated from the telescope’s faulty main mirror. As it was no longer required, it was replaced with the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. This new device would allow Hubble to peer farther into the depths of the universe than ever before, both in the near and far-ultraviolet ranges. Their next task was to repair the advanced camera for surveys, which involved the removal of 32 screws from an access panel, replacing the camera’s four circuit boards and installing a new power supply.

EVA-4 by Massimino and Good (May 17, 8h 20 min) included repairs to the telescope’s imaging spectrograph by replacing a power supply board. The astronauts experienced some difficulty with a handrail. This had to be removed before they could fit a fastener capture plate that was designed to retain over 100 screws during the removal of a cover plate. The astronauts found that a stripped bolt was preventing the handrail from coming free. They would receive guidance on how to overcome this problem from engineers at the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Massimino eventually carefully bent and broke the handrail free to allow installation of the capture plate. This episode raised some concerns in Mission Control over the possibility of the effort involved causing damage to the astronaut’s pressure suit. All went well, though, and in fact was much easier than at first thought. However, the astronauts were unable to install a new outer blanket layer on the outside of Hubble Bay 8, so this task was delayed to the fifth and final EVA of the mission. This final EVA (May 18, 7 h 2min) saw Feustel and Grunsfeld exchange a battery module from Bay 3 for a fresh one, as well as removing and replacing the H2 fine guidance sensor. They were then able to install the new outer blanket layer on three bays outside the telescope.

The result of all this activity was a telescope with six working complementary science instruments. This gave Hubble a capability far beyond what was envi­sioned when the facility was launched in 1990 and an extended operational life to at least 2014. After Hubble was released on May 19, again using the RMS, a final separation maneuver was made and the berthing mechanism which had held Hubble in the payload bay during the mission was stowed for landing. The crew completed a further RMS-aided examination of the orbiter heat shield to search for any new damage from orbital debris but fortunately no significant damage was discovered.

The following day (May 20), the crew stowed gear and checked the RCS and flight control surfaces for entry and landing. The crew became the first to testify live from space on May 21, during a U. S. Senate Hearing in which they addressed the Senate Operations Committee, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, chaired by Senator Barbara Mikulski (Democrat) of Mary­land. She was the political driving force behind getting the STS-125 mission authorized. She and former U. S. Payload Specialist Senator Bill Nelson of Florida also talked to the crew.

Weather concerns and conditions at the Cape during May 22, 23, and 24 forced three consecutive landing waive-offs, requiring Atlantis to land at Edwards AFB, California on May 24, 2009. Just over a week later, the orbiter was ferried back to KSC on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, arriving back in Florida on June 2 after a two-day ferry flight. STS-125 had been a highly successful mission. Despite the apprehensions over flying an independent mission which could not visit the space station, the flight passed without major incident, ending a highly successful series of Hubble-related missions.

Milestones

266th manned space flight 156th U. S. manned space flight 126th Shuttle mission 30th flight of Atlantis 6th dedicated Shuttle HST mission 5th HST servicing mission Heaviest payload carried to Hubble on the Shuttle Final “solo” Shuttle mission of program Only post-Columbia-loss non-ISS Shuttle mission

In simple terms to attain true flight into space and achieve at least one orbit of Earth requires sufficient velocity and altitude to “fall” towards the planet in a closed orbit, which, as the surface curves away, is sufficient to loop around as long as the velocity and altitude is sustained. If not gravity will take over and the increasing density of the layers of the atmosphere drag the vehicle down towards the Earth once again. To escape low Earth orbit requires additional velocity “boosts” to increase speed to higher orbits or out towards the Moon or planets, using the gravitational forces of those celestial objects and the momentum of the vehicle to allow the spacecraft to journey towards them.

In an era of strained East/West relations following WWII, the growth in communism and the fear of a new, potentially nuclear, global conflict helped to create what has been termed the “Cold War”. Amid these fears of annihilation emerged a dramatic increase in the military arsenals of both the United States and the Soviet Union, creating the “Arms Race”. For military planners, gaining the high ground meant mastering a strategic advantage over the enemy. Attaining space flight capability in orbit around the Earth, or perhaps as far as the Moon, was about as high as you could hope to get in the 1950s. Of course, the only countries capable of achieving such a feat in the late 1950s were the communist Soviet Union and the capitalist United States. The “Space Race” which evolved between these two powerful nations and their ideologies was a competition to place the first object (satellite) in Earth orbit, send payloads to the Moon, and put the first man in space. The overriding goal during the first years of human space exploration was not scientific in purpose, but simply to beat the other superpower to the line. Doing so would be a clear demonstration, it was thought, of superior technology, implying strong military capability and making a great political and ideological statement.

It soon became obvious that enormous financial investment and infrastructure would be required to develop, mount, and sustain manned space flight operations. Military involvement was critical in the early years, if not in operational activities, then certainly to support launch, tracking, or recovery, or to provide the hardware and infrastructure to launch the payloads. As the program developed, so the balance between military and civilian participation shifted accordingly, with the support of the scientific community varying as required. For the Soviets, the complicated structure of the design bureaus and the supersecret nature of the civilian and military programs frequently served only to delay the development of advanced programs, such as the manned lunar landing, space shuttle, or space station efforts.

In contrast, the creation of the U. S. government space agency NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) in 1958 helped focus the “civilian” U. S. space program, but it did create the potential for competition and confrontation with the U. S. military—primarily the USAF. This friction was to

surface in congressional support for the development of the USAF Manned Orbit­ing Laboratory and NASA’s Apollo AppUcations (Skylab) space station programs and, much later, in convincing the Pentagon of the value of the NASA Space Shuttle for Department of Defense needs.

When President Kennedy committed America to reach the Moon by 1970, ideally before the Soviets, the Arms Race that had become the Space Race now evolved into a Moon Race. Even though it turned out to be purely one sided, at the time this was not clear, even to the Americans. When the U. S. committed to the Moon, only Yuri Gagarin had orbited the Earth, and then only once, during a 108-minute mission. America’s own space explorer, Alan Shepard, had experienced space but had not entered orbit, completing a 15-minute suborbital space “hop”. A second such flight was completed by Virgil Grissom in July 1961, but in August this was overshadowed by a mammoth 24-hour flight by Soviet cosmonaut Gherman Titov in Vostok 2. The bold commitment to place Americans on the Moon came as a surprise even to those involved in determining whether it could actually be done, so there was much work ahead. The clock was ticking and the Americans were clearly well behind in the race… for now.

As the new millennium approached, work on Mir continued, but only just. The demise of the Soviet Union, the creation of a new Russia, and the independent development of former communist states left much uncertainty. Russia now had little funding available, even for the bare essentials, so there was precious little available for space exploration. The program was rapidly losing its popularity in the new Russia, with former Soviet space museums becoming nightclubs and unused hardware left to rust in unused playgrounds. The severe reduction in funding meant Mir was in serious trouble.

In the short term, foreign investment helped, with a series of commercially supported visiting missions supplementing (and, on occasion, joining) long – duration expeditions. But, in the long term, something had to occur to keep the program going. That “something” would come from across the Atlantic.