Category Manned Spaceflight Log II—2006-2012

2009-030A May 27, 2009

Pad 1, Site 5, Baikonur Cosmodrome, Republic of

Kazakhstan

December 1, 2009

57 km from the town of Arkalyk, Republic of Kazakhstan

Soyuz-FG (serial number Ю15000-030),

Soyuz TMA (serial number 225)

187 da 20 h 41 min 38 s Parus (“Sail”)

ISS resident crew (ISS-20/21), transport (19S) to establish six-person crew capability

Flight crew

ROMANENKO, Roman Yuriyevich, 37, Russian Federation Air Force, RSA Soyuz TMA commander, ISS flight engineer

DE WINNE, Frank, 48, Belgian Air Force, ESA (Belgian), Soyuz/ISS flight

engineer, second mission

Previous mission’. Soyuz TMA-1 (2002)

THIRSK, Robert Brent, 55, civilian (Canadian), CSA Soyuz/ISS flight engineer, second mission Previous mission: STS-78 (1996)

Flight log

It was with this mission that ISS crewing became a little more complicated to keep track of. On March 29, 2009, Soyuz TM-15 and its three crew members, representing Europe (Belgium), Russia, and Canada, docked to the station after a nominal 2-day flight from Baikonur. Already on board the station was the three ISS-19 crew members, representing Russia, Japan, and the U. S., marking a truly international complement. Unlike previous resident crew arrivals, the ISS-19 crew would not immediately return to Earth, but would remain on board as part of the first six-person resident crew, now designated ISS-20.

The TMA-15 flight was the first complete three-person ISS resident crew complement launched on a Russian launch vehicle and spacecraft since ISS-1 in 2000. The arrival of TMA-15 instigated the change in crew exchange protocol and represented a significant increase in resident crew time for science aboard the station. For the first time, a representative from each of the main ISS partners was part of the main crew.

At the time of docking with the station, Padalka, Barratt, and Wakata were in residence as ISS-19, and once the hatches were opened, the TMA-15 crew joined them as flight engineers and the six became ISS-20. On July 17, U. S. astronaut Kopra arrived on STS-127 (2J/A) to take over from JAXA astronaut Wakata, who returned at the end of that Shuttle mission. Barely six weeks later on August 31, Nicole Stott replaced Kopra during the STS-128 (17A) activities. Both Kopra and Stott served as flight engineers for the crew of ISS-20 and Stott remained as flight engineer for ISS-21/22 until she came home on STS-129 in November, shortly before the return of the core TMA-15 crew. These were the final Shuttle – delivered crew members. All station resident crew members for the foreseeable future would now be delivered by Russian Soyuz.

The ISS-20 experiment program continued the work conducted during ISS-19. With the Japanese and European laboratories recently installed, the opportunity for broadening the research had increased significantly. By the time this mission flew, most of the station hardware had been delivered by the Shuttle and reflected a change that was taking place. The ISS was evolving from an assembly site to a fully functioning scientific research facility. The Russians noted that during ISS-21/22, there would be 304 sessions on 47 experiments, while NASA reported that over 150 operating experiments would be completed under the station’s new role as a U. S. National Laboratory.

Two new crew members for ISS-21/22 arrived aboard TMA-16 on October 2, together with space flight participant Guy Laliberte. He would return with the TMA-14 pair (Padalka and Barratt) on October 11, leaving behind the ISS-21 expedition which would last just six weeks until the TMA-15 crew came home. Officially, ISS-21 began on October 9 and lasted until November 25. During ISS-21 there were no EYAs, but the crew did see the arrival of Progress M-03M and the release of the Japanese HTV-1 with about 725 kg of unwanted equipment and rubbish for burn-up in the atmosphere. On November 12, Mini Research Module-2 (which was delivered by a modified Progress M vehicle) docked with the zenith (upper) port of Zvezda. With all this activity, the crew was certainly not struggling to keep themselves occupied.

STS-129 departed on November 25 carrying Stott home and, just five days later, the TMA-15 trio departed the station for a landing in the early hours of December 1 after a historic and highly successful mission. Following these departures and for the first time since July 2006, the station was down to a skele­ton crew of just two until the next Soyuz launched just prior to Christmas 2010.

In a flight of 188 days, the TMA-15 crew had spent all but two of them on the space station. Of these, 133 were as members of the ISS-20 expedition and just 47 days as ISS-21. De Winne became the first European station commander (ISS-20) and Thirsk the first resident Canadian crew member. Future crewing would feature a rota of U. S.-Russian crew members and an allocation of Soyuz seats for Canadian, Japanese, and ESA crew members. NASA reported that the new expedition actually began with the undocking of the outgoing crew on the TMA (though the formal change of command actually took place a few days earlier). In fact, as the crew exchanged command, the outgoing crew became known as the “non-prime crew” for their final few days prior to coming home, while their replacements became the “prime crew”, which just seemed to add confusion to those following the formal trail of command and assignment.

Operating a rotating six-person crew and only flying on the Soyuz TMA spacecraft meant that there would be no free seats for fare-paying passengers. Unless separate funds for a complete Soyuz vehicle could be found by those who arranged SFP/tourist flights, it would be very hard for anyone other than a profes­sional astronaut or cosmonaut to fulfill their dream of flying in space for some considerable time.

Milestones

267th manned space flight 108th Russian manned space flight 101st manned Soyuz flight 15th manned Soyuz TMA mission 19th ISS Soyuz mission (19S)

20/21 st ISS resident crew

Romanenko is the son of cosmonaut Yuri Romanenko (selected 1970), who flew on STS-26 (1977), Soyuz 38 (1980), and Soyuz TM2 (1987)

Final Shuttle-launched ISS crew members (Kopra and Stott)

Flight crew

POLANSKY, Mark Lewis, 53, civilian, NASA commander, third mission Previous missions-. STS-98 (2000), STS-116 (2006)

HURLEY, Douglas Gerald, 42, USMC, NASA pilot WOLF, David Alan, 52, civilian, NASA mission specialist 1, fourth mission Previous missions-. STS-58 (1993), STS-86/89/Mir (1997), STS-112 (2002) CASSIDY, Christopher John, 39, USN, NASA mission specialist 2 PAYETTE, Julie, 45, CSA, (Canadian) mission specialist 3, second mission Previous mission-. STS-96 (1999)

MARSHBURN, Thomas Henry, 48, civilian, NASA mission specialist 4 ISS resident crew exchange

KOPRA, Timothy Lennart, 45, U. S. Army, NASA mission specialist 5,

ISS flight engineer (up only)

WAKATA, Koichi, 45, Japan, JAXA mission specialist 5, ISS flight engineer

(down only), third mission

Previous missions-. STS-72 (1996), STS-92 (2000)

Flight log

The 29th Shuttle mission to ISS featured a range of robotic operations, most of which focused around the delivery of elements of the Japanese Kibo laboratory module. In addition, U. S. NASA astronaut Tim Kopra was the latest resident crew member to arrive via the Shuttle. He replaced outgoing Japanese (JAXA) astronaut Koichi Wakata, who had been on the station since March.

Final mission preparations began with Endeavour being taken into the OPF on December 13, 2008. The orbiter was then moved across to the VAB on April 10, 2009, where it was mated with the twin SRB and ET before being rolled out to Pad 39B on April 17. This preparation was for its role as a “rescue” vehicle for the forthcoming STS-125 Hubble Service Mission. In the event, this requirement was not called upon after the STS-125 mission proceeded smoothly. On May 31, the STS-127 stack was relocated across to Pad 39A for a planned launch on June 13.

On June 12, a hydrogen leak at the Ground Umbilical Carrier Plate (GUCP) during tanking caused the June 13 attempt to be scrubbed. The seal on the 17 in. (43.18 cm) disconnect valve was replaced and the launch rescheduled to June 17. This attempt was also scrubbed in the early hours of the planned launch day when a similar type of hydrogen gas leak occurred at the GUCP. Troubleshooting of the vent valve took an hour and when it became clear that the problem could not be easily resolved in the current launch window, the launch was eventually rescheduled for July 11. This next attempt was also postponed 24 hours to allow technicians more time to evaluate lightning strikes at the launchpad, which had occurred during a thunderstorm on July 10. It was determined from sensors that 11 lightning strikes had occurred within 0.35 miles (0.56 km) of the pad, which was inside the pad threshold. Launch was rescheduled again for July 12, but once again was scrubbed, this time at T — 11 minutes before scheduled launch time due to weather concerns near the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) that violated rules for landing. A fifth launch attempt on July 13 resulted in another postponement due to lightning and thunderstorms within the 20 nautical mile circle around the pad. The sixth attempt, rescheduled for July 15, finally occurred without incident.

During the standard two-day flight to the space station, the crew completed the customary survey of Endeavour’s thermal protection system using the RMS boom assembly. The pressure suits to be used on the EYAs were also prepared and checked. The now regular backflip maneuver was completed just prior to docking. Shortly after entering the space station, Kopra joined the ISS resident crew and Wakata transferred to the Shuttle crew, ending his formal ISS crew residency after 122 days.

There were five EYAs conducted as part of the STS-127 mission, totaling 30 hours 30 minutes. Four astronauts (including Kopra) participated in the excur­sions, teaming up in pairs. Marshburn logged 18 hours 59 minutes on three EVAs, Wolf logged 18 hours 24 minutes on his three space walks, and Cassidy amassed 18 hours 5 minutes on his three excursions. Kopra logged 5 hours 32 minutes on his single EVA as part of the STS-127 program.

During the first EVA (July 18, 5h 32 min), Wolf and Kopra managed to complete all of their primary tasks. These included preparations for the berthing mechanism on Kibo and on the Japanese Exposed Facility, which was transferred to the station. They also deployed an unmanned cargo carrier attachment system on the P3 truss, which had failed to unfurl properly during STS-119 the previous March.

Robotic arm operations continued during and in between the space walks, supporting and supplementing EVA activities. Following the first EVA, the Shuttle RMS and the station robotic arm were used to latch the JEF to Kibo’s laboratory. The installation was viewed by the Kibo RMS. Further robotic activities included the installation of the Integrated Cargo Carrier-Vertical Light Deployable (ICC-VLD) cargo pallet. This was located on the port side of the station’s Mobile Base System (MBS).

During the second EVA (July 20, 6 h 53 min), Wolf and Marshburn removed a Ku-band space-to-ground antenna, a pump module, and a liner drive unit from the Integrated Cargo Carrier. The two astronauts then attached these items to a storage platform on the P3 truss. Next, Marshburn mounted a grapple bar onto an ammonia tank assembly, which the STS-128 crew would later move with the help of the RMS. He also attached two external power connector insulation sleeves to the Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System. The planned installation of a video camera was deferred from this EVA to a later excursion. This EVA had taken place on the 40th anniversary of the famous first lunar surface activity (moonwalk) conducted by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin during the Apollo 11 mission. Both the station and Shuttle crews honored the legacy of that historic mission and event.

Following the second EVA, Polansky and Payette used the Shuttle RMS to pass the Japanese Logistics Module’s Exposed Facility from Endeavour to Canadarm2 on the station. Canadarm 2 was operated by Hurley and Wakata, who then attached it to the Kibo laboratory. Astronauts Hurley and Payette then used the station’s robotic arm to move the ICC and to secure the batteries in preparation for the P6 truss battery swap.

The third EVA (July 22, 5h 59 min) saw Wolf and Cassidy remove insulation covers from the Kibo Laboratory, as well as preparing the JES payloads for trans­port to the Exposed Facility the following day. Two batteries were also installed but the EVA was curtailed early when CO levels in Cassidy’s suit were found to have increased more than expected. The next day, several astronauts took turns to use the Japanese RMS for the first time to move equipment from a Japanese Payload Carrier to the Exposed Facility on the exterior of Kibo. The initial move­ment of this new arm was faster than expected, so the arm was transitioned to a Slower Manual Mode. The three installed experiments on the facility were the Monitor of All-sky X-ray Image (MAXI), the Inter-orbit Communications System and, the Space Environment Data Acquisition Equipment-Attached Payload.

During the fourth EVA (July 24, 7h 12 min), Cassidy and Marshburn installed the remaining four batteries on the P6 truss. Four of the older batteries were stored on the ICC for the return to Earth. The completion of robotic work would include the transfer of the ICC back to Endeavour’s payload bay by means of the station and Shuttle robotic systems.

The fifth and final EVA (July 27, 4h 54 min) saw Marshburn and Cassidy install video cameras on the front and back of the Japanese Exposed Facility to assist with the forthcoming rendezvous and berthing of the H-II Transfer Vehicle scheduled to arrive that coming September. The EVA astronauts also secured multilayered insulation around the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (Dextre), split out power channels for the station’s CMGs (Control Moment Gyros), tied down cables, and installed handrails and a portable foot restraint to aid future space walks.

Alongside the five EVAs and associated robotic activities, work continued inside the station. Crew members and flight controllers spent their time trouble­shooting the failure of the Waste and Hygiene Compartment (the toilet in the Destiny Laboratory Module). The Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly on the station also tripped a circuit breaker on July 28 and the ground team switched to manual operation of the backup heater.

Wakata had logged 133 days on the station by the time Endeavour undocked on July 28. After 10 days 23 hours 41 minutes of joint operations, the undocking was followed by the traditional fly-around of the complex, controlled by pilot Hurley, before moving away from the station.

After separation from the station, work was not over for the crew. In addition to a checkout of the Flight Control System and maneuvering engines and stowing of gear, the crew deployed two pairs of small satellites from the Endeavour payload bay prior to the landing at Kennedy Space Center. These were the Dual RF Astrodynamic GPS Orbital Navigation Satellite (DRAGONSat) and the dual Atmospheric Neutral Density Equipment 2 (ANDE-2) satellite. The subsatellites were designed and built by students at the University of Texas in Austin and the Texas A&M University in College stations. The ANDE-2 microsatellites would

measure the density and composition of the rarefied atmosphere 200 miles (321.8 km) above the surface of Earth. DRAGONSat de-orbited on March 17, 2010, while the pair of ANDE satellites reentered the atmosphere on March 29 and August 18, 2010, respectively.

Milestones

268th manned space flight 157th U. S. manned space flight 127th Shuttle mission 23 rd Endeavour mission 10th Endeavour ISS mission 29th Shuttle ISS mission 2nd Shuttle mission to feature five space walks

Flight crew

STURCKOW, Frederick Wilford, 48, USMC, NASA commander, fourth mission

Previous missions: STS-88 (1998), STS-105 (2001), STS-117 (2007)

FORD, Kevin Anthony, 49, USAF (Retd.), NASA pilot

FORRESTER, Patrick Graham, 52, USAF (Retd.), NASA mission specialist 1,

third mission

Previous missions: STS-105 (2001), STS-117 (2007)

HERNANDEZ, Jose Moreno, 47, civilian, mission specialist 2/ffight engineer OLIVAS, John Daniel, 44, civilian, NASA mission specialist 3, second mission Previous mission: STS-117 (2007)

FUGLESANG, Arne Christer, 52, civilian (Swedish), ESA mission specialist 4, second mission

Previous mission: STS-116 (2006) ISS resident crew exchange

STOTT, Nicole Maria Passano, 46, civilian, NASA mission specialist 5, ISS-20

flight engineer (up only)

KOPRA, Timothy Lennart, 45, U. S.A., NASA mission specialist 5, ISS-20 flight engineer (down only)

Flight log

According to reports from NASA, this was the mission which marked the beginning of the station’s transition from assembly to a continuous scientific research facility. The Leonardo MPLM was packed with supplies, stores, and new equipment to continue outfitting of the station. It was also the final Shuttle

mission to deliver a new resident station crew member. Nicolle Stott (NASA) would replace Tim Kopra after his 58 days aboard the orbital complex.

Preparations for the mission saw orbiter Discovery return to the OPF on March 28, 2009. It was rolled over to the VAB on July 26 for mating with the SRB and ET, with rollout to the pad occurring on August 4. The original August 25 launch attempt was scrubbed due to adverse weather conditions and the second attempt on August 26 was also postponed (during the refueling of the ET) follow­ing indications that a valve on the Main Propulsion System (MPS) had failed to perform as expected. A third attempt (August 27) was also postponed 24 hours to allow engineers more time to resolve an issue with a valve in the vehicle’s propul­sion system. The fourth launch attempt, on August 28, was accomplished successfully and completed without any major issues.

Prior to docking with the station, the obligatory inspection routines were completed to check the integrity of the heat shield. Following analysis of the imagery on the ground, the thermal protection system was deemed secure for entry and landing.

After the docking and opening of internal hatches, Kopra became part of the Shuttle crew while Stott transferred to the resident crew. Kopra had logged 45 days on board the station as an official resident crew member. The crew also pre­pared and moved the OBSS across to the station’s Canadarm2 to create additional room for maneuvering the Leonardo MPLM from the cargo bay to the Harmony

Node on station the following day. The rest of the day was spent preparing the pressurized cargo module for the transfer of supplies and logistics, an operation which would take the next six days to complete. Olivas, Hernandez, and Stott also prepared the tools for the planned EVAs, placing them in the station’s Quest airlock.

Three EVAs were completed on this mission, focused upon replacing experiments outside the ESA Columbus Laboratory and installing a new ammonia storage tank. Nicole Stott participated in the first EVA (September 1, 6h 35 min) with Olivas, during which they removed the depleted ammonia tank on the PI (Port 1) segment of the truss. The ammonia in these tanks is used to cool the station and expel the heat generated by the resident crew and onboard systems.

The next task was to retrieve two science experiments, EUTEF and MISSE-6, from the ESA Columbus Laboratory. The European Technology Exposure Facility (EuTEF) held a number of different experiments which collected data on the space environment. The sixth Materials International Space Station Experi­ment (MISSE-6) was housed in two suitcase-sized containers and was used to evaluate the effects of the environment on various materials and coating samples. Olivas reported seeing what he described as MMOD (micrometeoroid and orbital debris) “hits” on a station toolbox and the Quest airlock. He took photos of the area for later evaluation on the ground to determine whether the damage was a cause for concern, although hits for MMOD are not unexpected. For 30 minutes during the EVA, MCC Houston did not have communication with either the station or the Shuttle due to bad weather in Guam that effected the TDRSS reception.

On the second EVA (September 3, 6h 39 min), Olivas and Fuglesang installed a new ammonia tank on the PI truss segment and bolted the removed empty assembly into the orbiter’s payload bay. Protective lens covers were installed on the station RMS cameras, which would shield them from contamination when the arm was used to dock the Japanese H-ll Transfer Module later that month (September). The two astronauts also installed a portable foot restraint on the station’s truss system for use during upcoming missions. The astronauts discov­ered that the heater cables on the exterior of PMA-3 appeared to be in an incorrect configuration to extend sufficiently for planned relocation and as a result this task had to be deferred.

The final EVA of this mission (September 5, 7h lmin) saw Olivas and Fuglesang set up a payload attachment system on the station truss, which would be activated on the next mission. In addition, they replaced a rate gyro assembly and remote power control module, installed two GPS antennas, and removed a slide wire on the Unity Node. The connection of two avionics cables could not be completed on this EVA and had to be rescheduled for a future excursion. These would eventually be connected to Tranquility (Node 3), the final main module that would be delivered to the U. S. segment. The cables were wrapped in insulation, but it was found that one of the connectors on one of the cables would not mate. At the end of the EVA Fuglesang’s helmet-mounted video camera and headlight system became detached, so Olivas helped Fuglesang to connect a tether to the system and plans were devised to inspect its latches after they were back inside the spacecraft.

In total, the three space walks accumulated 20 hours 15 minutes. Olivas logged 20 hours 15 minutes in three EVAs, Fuglesang 13 hours 40 minutes on two space walks, and Stott 6 hours 35 minutes on her single venture outside.

On September 2, the Shuttle and station crews transferred the Fluids Integrated Rack, Materials Science Research Rack-1, and Minus Eighty-Degree Laboratory Freezer-2 from Leonardo and installed them in the U. S. Laboratory Destiny. In addition, ISS resident crew member Mike Barrett installed and out­fitted the third and fourth planned NASA crew quarters facihties. Inside the station, crew members replaced one of the 16 common berthing mechanism bolts used to secure the Leonardo cargo carrier to the station, as it had not operated correctly earlier in the mission. An old oxygen generation assembly water filter was also opened and inspected. It had been replaced prior to the arrival of the Shuttle. It was found that the filter was 70-80% blocked and the inspection increased confidence that the replacement filter had returned the system to full functionality.

During the docked phase, NASA reported that approximately 7.5 tons of equipment and supplies had been transferred out of Leonardo and 2,4001b (1,088.64 kg) of discards and experiment results placed back inside the module for return to Earth, all under the supervision of loadmaster Fuglesang. The Shuttle middeck held a further 8,8601b (4,018.89 kg) of returned items. One of these was the Disney astronaut character Buzz Lightyear from the Toy Story films. This was part of the NASA “Toys in Space” project designed to encourage students to pursue studies in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The Disney “Space Ranger” had logged 15 months on board the station. MPLM Leo­nardo was returned to the payload bay on September 7.

Discovery undocked on September 8 after 8 days 18 hours 32 minutes of joint operations. Following the normal fly-around of the station and pre-landing checks, the orbiter was prepared for landing. Weather concerns prevented a return to the Cape on September 10 and again the next day. The landing was completed on Runway 22 at Edwards AFB in California. On his mission, Kopra had logged a total of 58 days in flight, of which 8 were aboard the space station as a Shuttle crew member and 5 were spent aboard the Shuttle either flying to or coming home from the station. As well as the normal postflight activities for the “human” space crew, the “other” space hero of the mission—Buzz Lightyear—was celebrated with a tickertape parade alongside his space station crew mates and Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin at Walt Disney World in Florida on October 2, 2009.

Milestones

269th manned space flight 158th U. S. manned spaceflight 128th Shuttle mission 37th Discovery mission 11th Discovery ISS mission 30th ISS Shuttle assembly mission

Following the publication of the first edition of Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006 we were pleased with the response and feedback from readers. It was always our intention to produce subsequent works covering the years beyond 2006 and it was rewarding to know that the earlier volume provided such a handy quick reference guide to each manned space mission; a guide that could lead to further research, or just answer a query. The work was never intended to be a definitive account of every mission, and it remains doubtful if such an encyclopedic series of volumes will ever be written, and in the scope of the original project there was simply not enough pages to expand each entry further than a brief summary.

For the current work we decided to cover the missions flown to the end of the fifth decade and those in the opening two years of the sixth decade of human orbital space flight operations. We were therefore able to update the original entry for Soyuz TMA-9 which had just been launched when the book went to press. By including the flights in 2011 we could introduce the first year in a new decade which also marked a number of milestones in space exploration.

In April 2011 the 50th anniversary of Vostok, the first space flight by Yuri Gagarin was celebrated around the world. That month also saw the 40th anniversary of the launch of Salyut, the world’s first space station and the 30th anniversary of the first Space Shuttle mission by Columbia. In October the 20th anniversary of the launch of Soyuz TM-13, the final manned space flight under the Soviet Union was quietly achieved, whilst back in March the 10th anniversary of the first exchange of ISS expeditions took place with the ISS-1 crew handing over to ISS-2. So, in the history books at least, 2011 was a banner year for manned space flight anniversaries, and also added a new entry with the final flight of the Space Shuttle in July and the mission of STS-135.

With the Americans flying the final Shuttle missions in 2011 so the Russians completed the final evaluations of the upgraded Soyuz TMA-M spacecraft. With the retirement of the Shuttle the TMA-M became the primary crew transport and rescue

vehicle for ISS operations for the next few years. In September the Chinese began their next phase of manned space operation with the launch of their first Salyut-class space station called Tiangong (“Heavenly Palace”).

The following year saw the first operational launches of the latest version of the venerable Soyuz and the initial crew to visit the Chinese space station. The Shenzhou 9 crew featured a three-person team including Jing Haipeng, the first Chinese taikonaut to make a second flight, having flown on Shenzhou 7 in 2008 and Liu Yang the first Chinese woman to fly in space. The year also saw the first (unmanned) commercial mission dock with the ISS, the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft, which gave a successful demonstration of the capacity of the vehicle to support future manned space flights as one of several American aerospace company designs hoping to replace the Space Shuttle.

This book, therefore, focuses upon the latest developments covering September 2006 through December 2012, a period of six years in which the main space station assembly was completed, yet another lease of life was given to Soyuz after over 40 years of operational service, and a significant new step in the development of Chinese permanent presence in space. In this time period there were over 40 new space flights to insert into the log, an impressive total.

We have not, however, neglected the rich ancestry of these recent missions. In the earlier volume we explained the methods and systems available to reach space across the 1961 to 2006 period and, as we focused upon orbital space flight, we included a section that explained the quest for space in which efforts were made in ballistic suborbital flight by space capsules or astro-flights by winged vehicles, all within the confines of the Earth’s atmosphere. This included the 13 X-15 rocket plane astro-flights between 1962 and 1968 which surpassed the 80 km (50 mile) altitude, the two 1961 Mercury-Redstone suborbital missions that both surpassed the 185 km (115 miles) altitude, and all three 2004 SpaceShipOne X-Prize flights in excess of 100 km altitude (62 miles).

For this current edition we have amended the opening two chapters to overview those earlier efforts and incorporated the latest development and achievements to bring the story up to date and cover 50 years of operations. For the missions flown between 1961 and 2012 we have presented a short overview which describes the main milestones and advances within the first five decades of human space flight activities and what lessons were learned or experiences gained within each decade.

From Chapter 3 we cover the new space flights completed between September 2006 and December 2010 completing the fifth decade of operations including an update to conclude the Soyuz TMA-9 entry begun in the earlier edition. Chapter 4 commences the story of the sixth decade for missions flown in 2011 and to the end of September 2012. We have also included a brief entry for Soyuz TMA-06M launched and docked with the station in October 2012. These entries follow the format adopted in the earlier volume to provide continuity. A summary is then added for Chapter 5 which includes a resume of Soyuz TMA-07M, the final mission planned for 2012, looks forward to the remaining years of the sixth decade of operations, and discusses what may be the future of human space activities beyond that.

A series of appendixes and a bibliography complete the work offering further reference to the main text. The updated tables cover the period 1961-2012 and we have included a full EVA log which originally appeared in the companion title Walking in Space.

Having realized that the most efficient method to punch through the atmosphere, gain the velocity to counter the pull of Earth’s gravity, and “fly in space” was the rocket, the next challenge was to devise the best way to harness that power for both unmanned and manned operations. The main difference between those operations was, of course, the safety of the human crew being carried. As missile rocketry was still in its infancy, the chances of a vehicle blowing up on the launch – pad or in the early stages of flight were very high. The development of rescue systems and striving to ensure the safety of the launch vehicle was paramount. This effort became known as man-rating.

By the 1950s, only two nations had the capability and infrastructure to support a concerted effort to explore space; the U. S.S. R. and the United States. It was here that the military consideration of “securing the high ground” developed the Cold War “arms race” into a “space race” and, eventually, a “moon race”.

What followed was a series of one-person flights that pushed the boundaries of human space flight endeavor from a few minutes to up to a few days in the next two years. It was a rapid advancement. The four U. S. Mercury orbital missions during 1962 and 1963 increased U. S. durations from 4 hours to 8, then 22 hours. A planned three-day Mercury mission was canceled, as the agency wanted to move to the more advanced two-man Gemini missions in preparation for the Apollo series.

In 1962, and again in 1963, the Soviets flew two dual flights, increasing their mission durations to between 3 and 5 days and once again stealing the headlines by flying the first female space explorer, Valentina Tereshkova, in June 1963 (Vostok 6) and the longest solo space flight (5 days), by Valeri Bykovsky. The one-person Vostok was then modified to carry additional crew members (all without spacesuits). It reappeared as Voskhod 1 in October 1964, flying a three – person crew (a pilot, doctor, and scientist), before the two-person Voskhod 2 in

MtriCUN*

poiio

Comparing the pioneering American manned spacecraft.

March 1965 during which Alexei Leonov performed the world’s first space walk. These missions were politically motivated, inserted as “space spectaculars” designed to upstage the American Gemini flights, as well as filling time until the more advanced three-person Soyuz was ready. The Voskhod flights were very risky and achieved very little apart from Leonov’s space walk. They diverted resources away from the Soyuz program, the real Soviet competition to Gemini and Apollo.

The multi-purpose Soyuz was designed to perform a variety of tasks for the Soviets. These included rendezvous and docking missions, as a space station crew ferry, as a solo scientific research platform, some with clearly military objectives and, in its guise as Zond, as a two-person lunar transport craft with separate one – person lunar lander. Developed by the OKB-1 design bureau under the powerful leadership of Chief Designer Sergei Korolev, the driving force of the Soviet space program since its inception, Soyuz was hoped to be the salvation of the Soviet effort in space, trying to capture the headlines from the Americans. Unfortunately, the program was plagued with problems from the start. In January 1966 Korolev died on the operating table during surgery and with his loss came a power struggle

not only at OKB but with other design bureaus for government-supported space programs. Then in April 1967 Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov was lost in a landing accident on Soyuz 1, and over the next few years difficulties in man-rating the lunar launch vehicle the N1 saw the Soviets abandon reaching the Moon in favor of the creation of large space stations. They issued statements to the effect that the Moon was never actually a target for their cosmonauts at all, which is now known not to be the case. It was a difficult time for the Soviet program.

The Americans, on the other hand, were very successful with their second – generation spacecraft, Gemini. Between March 1965 and November 1966, 10 two-man missions were flown with remarkable consistency. Gemini was planned as a stepping stone between the one-man Mercury and three-man Apollo and was designed to extend the experience of American missions from 1 to 14 days, which was the expected average duration of the Apollo lunar missions. Another objective of Gemini was to perfect the skills of rendezvous and docking and close quarters formation flying, known as Proximity Operations, or “Prox-Ops”. The program also provided the opportunity to conduct far more extensive space walks than had been possible on Voskhod. Incorporating a crew compartment hatch that could be opened in space allowed one astronaut on each of Gemini flights 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12 to conduct pioneering American EVAs. Gemini also afforded the opportunity to fly a number of small experiments and conduct scientific observations on its longer missions and also to perfect the techniques of precision splashdown. On the whole, NASA gained a significant amount of experience with Gemini, taking the long-duration record from the Soviets, increasing their EVA experience, and perfecting docking with unmanned targets. These were important skills to be mastered in advance of the Apollo series of missions and beyond. Indeed, the experience gained during Gemini makes it one of the most important, if still most overlooked, programs in human space flight history.

The American Freedom space station program was running high over budget, exceeding its workable size and becoming too complex and too expensive. With new President Bill Clinton in the White House, the word came down to trim the program or it would be canceled. With so much having already been invested, the desire was to redesign the program, looking at new and alternative options. One of these, developed through talks with the Russians, was to use elements of the planned but grounded Mir 2 as a starting block for a stripped-down station. A further cost saving would be to use the well-proven Soyuz as a crew rescue vehicle until a dedicated vehicle could be developed. America would help fund the completion of the former Mir 2 elements and agreed to fly cosmonauts on the Shuttle in return for sending astronauts to Mir.

Identified as Phase 1 of the international program, a series of Shuttle-Mir docking missions were created to give America some long overdue docking prac­tice, something they had not conducted since 1975. It would also give them the chance to gain their first long-duration experience since Skylab almost 20 years before, with a series of American astronaut residencies on Mir. As a result of these plans, several Shuttle flights were canceled and an assembly sequence worked out for what was now termed the International Space Station.

After further political and financial wrangling, as well as some doubts raised on both sides, the Americans and Russians agreed, with the other international partners, to cooperate on the ISS. Eventually, the new plans were sanctioned by the White House and Congress. At last, the Shuttle had a firm objective in build­ing the ISS and the Russians had funds to keep Mir flying. It seems somewhat ironic given their past differences that the American space station Freedom would use pieces of the former Soviet Mir 2 to develop the multinational ISS. Times were certainly changing.

With Mir reprieved, a new cooperative partnership had to be forged, with a NASA team at the Gagarin training center near Moscow and a Russian team at JSC in Houston. The Shuttle-Mir program envisaged a series of flights of Russian cosmonauts as mission specialists on Shuttle missions, for which they only required to complete basic MS training in Houston since they were already part of the cosmonaut team. What is clear, but quietly overlooked, was that for those cosmonauts chosen to cooperate with the Americans, most had far more flight experience than their American colleagues. For the Americans, training for Mir would be significantly different than preparing for a Shuttle mission. Despite some of those selected for flights to Mir having previous flight experience on the Shuttle, they would all have to face an extensive training program on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft and Mir systems. Although it was agreed to use English as the default language for ISS, this did not apply to Mir, so for the NASA astronauts (and their support teams), the program of training in Russia included mastering the Russian language and moving to Star City near Moscow for months on end.

Dave Shayler Mike Shayler December 2012

During the 1950s, it was recognized that the most efficient method of conducting flights in space was by means of rocket power. What was less clear was the design of the vehicle that would be lifted into space carrying a crew. There were two main schools of thought. One considered using converted intercontinental ballistic missiles with sufficient power to lift a small pressurized compartment into orbit. The other advocated rocket-powered aircraft, which could either be air-launched from a carrier aircraft flying in the higher reaches of the atmosphere or rocket – launched from a launchpad. Once the missions had been completed, either system would need to be able to return to Earth and here again the two systems would differ.

The pressurized compartments, usually referred to as “capsules”, could descend using retro-rockets and an ablative covering, protecting the structure of the vehicle (and its precious human cargo) from incineration during entry. They could then deploy a series of parachutes to affect a softer landing either on land or water. These types of spacecraft would be single use and relatively small, to ensure that the capabilities of the parachutes were not compromised. In the case of water recovery from the ocean, they would require a fleet of naval craft to support the retrieval of crew and hardware.

The rocket-powered aircraft would have the capability of landing on a runway, which offered a more cost-effective method of recovery. It would also be possible to reuse the same vehicle after a period of turnaround. Both methods would be developed to pioneer the first decade of human space exploration.

Sadly, the start of Apollo manned operations was marked by a tragedy, not in space but on the ground, with the loss of the Apollo 1 crew in a pad fire a couple of weeks before the planned Earth-orbiting mission. This set back the program almost two years, with the first crew not flying in an Apollo spacecraft until October 1968. It is also important to point out that there were other issues (with the qualification of the launch vehicles and reducing the weight of the Lunar Module) that further delayed the manned missions. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the Apollo landing attempts would probably not have occurred before 1969, even without the Apollo 1 fire.

In December 1968, the Apollo 8 mission became the first to carry astronauts around the Moon. Occurring at Christmas time, it gave the chance for a signifi­cant worldwide audience to watch the TV transmissions from lunar orbit. Then, in March 1969, the Apollo 9 crew tested the bug-like Lunar Module (LM) in Earth orbit and evaluated the Apollo lunar suit in a short EVA. Two months later in May, Apollo 10 astronauts took the LM to nine miles above the lunar surface, clearing the way for Apollo 11 to make the first landing attempt. In July 1969 millions saw Neil Armstrong step into history, followed by Buzz Aldrin as the first humans to land, walk, and five on the Moon, if only for a few short hours.

Once Apollo started flying with astronauts on board, the missions for the rest of the decade progressed remarkably smoothly, given the complexity of the missions and what they were trying to achieve. This apparent ease of success con­tributed to a general impression in both the politicians and public that space flight was becoming commonplace and that flying to the Moon was routine. One mission would soon demonstrate how wrong that impression was.

Meanwhile, the Soviets, while watching Apollo grab the headlines, quietly resumed the Soyuz missions at about the same time that Apollo returned to flight after Apollo 1, prompting Western observers to erroneously suggest that the race to the Moon was back on. The primary goal of the first Soyuz missions was for the cosmonauts to gain experience of manned rendezvous and docking, something they had lost ground with to the Americans. After the failure of Soyuz 3 to dock with the unmanned Soyuz 2, there was a concerted effort to achieve manned ren-

dezvous and docking with another crew in a second spacecraft. This had been the original objective of Soyuz 1 and the canceled Soyuz 2 in 1967 and was finally achieved with Soyuz 5 linking up to Soyuz 4 in January 1969. Two of the cosmo­nauts also completed an EVA from Soyuz 5 to 4, returning in the second craft. At the time, this was promoted as the world’s first space station, but as more details emerged this bold claim was shown to be stretching the point a little. But it was still a significant achievement and a remarkable step forward for the Soviets.

Though not clear at the time, this was also a demonstration of the technique planned (but never demonstrated) for the Soviet lunar program, in which a lone cosmonaut would have spacewalked from the main craft to the lander and later, after returning from the Moon, would have completed a second EVA to enter the return craft for the trip home. Unfortunately, when the feat was tried again (this time without an EVA planned), Soyuz 8 could not dock with Soyuz 7. Both vehicles did compete a group (troika) flight with Soyuz 6 in which the first space welding experiments were performed, but it was another bitter blow to the Soviets in the wake of the success of Apollo 11 and the failure of their unmanned Luna 15 sample return craft. It lent credence to the argument for abandoning the Moon to the Americans and pressing on with creating a space station in Earth orbit instead, some years before the planned U. S. Skylab station was launched.

Shortly after the Soyuz troika flight came Apollo 12, which repeated the success of the previous Apollo missions by landing on the Ocean of Storms. Pete Conrad and A1 Bean conducted two Moon walks to deploy a suite of surface experiments and then visited the unmanned Surveyor III which had landed nearby some 30 months earlier. Unfortunately, a failed TV camera did little to help viewer ratings back home with the audience having to hear what the two astronauts were doing instead of watching their activities.

Plans for Apollo originally included at least 10 landings, followed by the creation of a rudimentary space station, cleverly constructed from elements of Apollo/Saturn hardware. It was hoped that more extensive lunar exploration mis­sions and further Saturn workshops would be launched, leading to far larger space stations by the 1980s. These were expected to be crewed by up to 50 astronauts and supplied by a reusable space ferry called a “space shuttle”. By the 1980s, Apollo-derived hardware could be used to send the first humans to the planet Mars. This was the grand plan in 1969.

One of the major stumbling blocks in securing this grand vision was the April 1970 mission of Apollo 13. The explosion suffered on the way to the Moon aborted the planned landing and almost claimed the fives of the crew. The dramatic recovery of the three astronauts after such a perilous journey around the Moon and back home passed into NASA lore. It showed the agency at its very best at a time of great difficulty. Unfortunately, the seeds of success with Apollo were also maturing to throttle its future at the height of its accomplishments. NASA astronauts had reached the Moon within the timescale that President Kennedy had proclaimed and had achieved the feat twice. But now the American public was questioning why there was any need to keep going back when there was no sign of competition from the Soviets or anyone else, there were so many difficulties at home, and there was a very costly conflict on the other side of the world draining American resources.

In the firing fine of all this was Apollo and the grand plan for what was to follow. Budgets had been tight for a while and, with new President Richard M. Nixon in office, were about to become much tighter. The first casualty was Apollo 20, which was canceled in January 1970, with the remaining seven flights stretched out over the next four years. In September 1970, five months after nearly losing Apollo 13, two more flights were canceled. Apollo would now end with flight 17 and, following the lunar flights, only one Saturn workshop (now called Skylab) would fly instead of the planned two or three. There would be no series of extended lunar missions or Apollo’s flying in Earth orbit to utilize the skills gained and hardware proven for other objectives. On a more positive note, although they had lost the so-called “race” to the Moon, relations between the Soviets and the U. S. had improved and plans were being developed to fly a joint docking mission with cosmonauts during the mid-1970s. There were also signs that the Space Shuttle might still be authorized, although the large space stations it was originally planned to service were struggling to find support and funding. Any mention of manned missions to Mars was quietly dropped.

By the time the Soyuz troika missions flew in October 1969, Apollo 11 had won the race to the Moon for the Americans, while Soviet manned lunar hard­ware had still to leave the ground. The final blow for Soviet manned lunar exploration had been dealt and the leadership was planning a shift towards mastering long-duration space flight. They still held out hope for lunar success until 1974, when the lunar effort was finally abandoned. A major stepping stone in support of the space station goal, however, was the highly successful 18-day Soyuz 9 mission, flown in June 1970, the final mission flown in the first decade of manned space flight. It was an indication of things to come, looking to extend the duration of human flights in space rather than sending them out to explore distant worlds, at least for the near future.

The main Shuttle program changed emphasis again to more scientific missions, many of which were linked to the forthcoming ISS program. Within the decade, there were 63 Shuttle missions, including the 10 missions associated with Mir (the “near Mir” rendezvous mission of STS-63 and 9 docking missions STS-71, 74, 76, 79, 81, 84, 86, 89, and 91), and the first 6 ISS assembly missions (STS-88, 96, 101, 106, 92, and 97). The remaining missions were aimed at catching up with the delayed manifest and providing information useful to the proposed research programs on the ISS.

The classified military Shuttle missions quickly came to an end. In fact, the three which were flown (STS-39, STS-44, and STS-53) were only partially classi­fied. The Shuttle also continued its program of deployments of NASA’s Great Observatories, as well as larger payloads such as the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (STS-37), the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (STS-48), the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (STS-51), and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory (STS-93).

After the deployment of Hubble in 1990, problems were discovered with its optical clarity. Corrective optics were designed and these had to be installed on the first of a series of planned servicing missions. Within this decade of operations, there were three such missions to Hubble (STS-61, 82, and 103), which featured a total of 13 EYAs working at the telescope.

The Shuttle program of the 1990s also included a number of Spacelab module or pallet missions, which utilized the Shuttle’s unique capabilities for science in low Earth orbit. Between 1991 and 2000, these missions and payloads included: Space Life Science 1 (STS-40) and 2 (STS-58) and the advanced Neurolab (STS-90); the International Microgravity Laboratory 1 (STS-42) and 2 (STS-65); Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science 1 (STS-45), 2 (STS -56), and Atlas 3 (STS-66); U. S. Microgravity Laboratory 1 (STS-50) and 2 (STS-73); the U. S. Microgravity Payload 1 (STS-52), 2 (STS-62), 3 (STS-75), and 4 (STS-87); Space Radar Laboratory 1 (STS-59), 2 (STS-68), and the advanced Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (STS-99); the Japanese Spacelab J (STS-47) and the German Spacelab D2 (STS-55); Astro-2 (STS-67); the Life and Micro­gravity Spacelab (STS-78); and the Material Sciences Laboratory 1 (STS-83) and its re-flight (STS-94).

Contingency spacewalking had been an option for emergency or unplanned situations since the start of the program, so each Shuttle crew featured an EVA – trained team, whether for planned or unplanned space walks. The first Shuttle EVA had occurred during STS-6 in 1983 and since then EVA had supported a number of satellite-servicing and recovery/repair operations. Now, additional EVAs were being added to the program to evaluate hardware, training, procedures, and operations planned for the ISS.

Several Shuttle flights included demonstrations and evaluations of techniques and equipment in preparation for the ISS assembly missions, which would begin in 1998. Once that huge construction program started, the Shuttle program shifted emphasis again, beginning in 1999 and for the rest of its operational service, from mainly science to mostly ISS assembly and resupply. In fact, during the period of station assembly (November 1998-July 2011), there were only six missions (STS-93, 103, 99, 109, 107, and 125) which were not directly related to the ISS out of 43 Shuttle missions completed.

As with the compilation of the earlier Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log 1961-2006 this work would not have been possible without the continued support and encourage­ment of a worldwide network of fellow researchers and authors over a period of many years including

• Australia: Cohn Burgess;

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

• U. K.: Phil Clark, David Harland, Gordon Hooper, Dominic Phelan, Tony Quine, Andrew Salmon, George Spiteri, Andrew Wilson, and Robert Wood;

• U. S.A.: Michael Cassutt, John Charles, James Oberg, Curtis Peebles, and Asif Siddiqi.

We must not forget our fellow researchers, colleagues, and good friends Rex Hall, M. B.E. and Neville Kidger, who provided an unselfish wealth of information, support, suggestions, and cooperation over a 30 yr period. Some of their research is incorporated in this current volume and brings back fond memories of them.

U. K. space journalist Tim Furniss, our fellow author on the first edition of this work, deserves special thanks for his contributions to the reporting and documenta­tion of space exploration over the years. His earlier works Space Shuttle Log and Manned Spaceflight Log were the inspiration for the Praxis Manned Spaceflight Log, which included unpublished updates to his earlier works through 1990. Tim’s contributions to the earlier edition of this book were generous and key to its format and success. Unfortunately, whilst fully endorsing the new work, Tim was unable to devote as much attention as he would have wished but his encouragement and support are much appreciated.

The authors also wish to express their appreciation for the ongoing help and support of the various public affairs departments of NASA, ESA, the Canadian

Space Agency, the Japanese Space Agency JAXA, and the Russian Space Agency. Though a significant amount of information is placed on the various websites it still requires personal contact to refine details and to conduct personal research and study—truly “digging in the dust”—and for this we thank the above departments for their online assistance and efforts over the past 10-15 years or so.

The staff, publications, and archives of the British Interplanetary Society in London, especially those involved in its magazine Spaceflight, continue to be supportive of our research, for which we are grateful.

The online reference websites of Collect Space and Space Facts provide a valuable quick look source for the latest news and developments supporting the news releases from the various space agencies and are recommended for further research.

Once again we express our thanks to Colonel A1 Worden (Command Module Pilot for Apollo 15) for his generous and updated Foreword.

We thank the generous assistance of Brian Harvey for the photo of the first Chinese female in space—Liu Yang—taken at the 2012 IAF Congress in Naples, Italy, October 2012. We also appreciate the use of Mark Wade’s image of a display model of a Chinese Feitian EVA suit from his website Encyclopedia Astronautica.

All other images are via NASA, unless otherwise stated, via the AIS photo archive.

As always we appreciate the help, support, and understanding of our families during the time it took to compile and prepare this book. Special thanks to our wives Bel (who helped update all the tables) and Ruth for allowing us time to devote to the project when there were still pressing domestic projects and chores to complete. It is also worth mentioning the input of our mother Jean Shayler on this project. At the age of 83 Mom mastered the modern art of inputting data on a computer and transferred all the new log entries from handwritten notes.

Last but by no means least we appreciate the continued enthusiasm, support, encouragement, and professionalism of Clive Horwood of Praxis Books. Special mention should be made to Clive’s team at Praxis: Sue, Romy, and Harry, who over the years fully supported both Clive and his authors worldwide.

Thanks also to the staff of Springer-Verlag, New York and Germany, for pre and post-production support; to Neil Shuttlewood and staff at OPS Ltd. for their editing and typesetting skills; to Jim Wilkie for his efforts in preparing our original cover design to the finished article; and the book printers and binders for the end result. Without such a team effort from Praxis and Springer this series would not be as popular as it has become.