A Room with a Galactic View Inside the Worlds First Space Hotel – The Vintage News

Ready for a vacation in a space hotel? Tourists may only have to wait a few years, according to an announcement from the Gateway Foundation. The group have unveiled sky high plans for a commercial space station, the worlds first extraterrestrial hotel.

Architect Tim Alatorre was inspired by the rotating designs of scientist Wernher von Braun. Hence the Von Braun Space Station, a wheel measuring 623 ft in diameter. It will host 24 pods for the ultimate in human habitation, accommodating approx. 400 with 100 guests arriving per week following the prospective launch.

View of what the Von Braun space station will look like. Photo from the Gateway Foundation

The hotel will be a one-stop destination for leisure-seekers and business travelers. People even have the option of living permanently amongst the stars. Business Insider writes that Gateway plan to sell modules as private residences, rent out others to governments for research purposes and turn the remaining, well, space, into a luxe hotel.

A major selling point is artificial gravity, seen as unnecessary at locations such as the International Space Station but essential for a comfortable stay. In an interview with Dezeen, Alatorre highlights astronaut Scott Kellys 12 months aboard the ISS, saying it made clear that long term habitation of space in micro-gravity is not sustainable.

Simulated lunar gravity ensures that arrivals wont be too busy finding their feet to enjoy the (literally) stellar views. It will also make awkward matters such as showering or going to the toilet a whole lot easier!

Another space-bound tradition being dispensed with are the aesthetics. Many consider the movie 2001 by Stanley Kubrick (1968)as a benchmark in practical design. However for Alatorre that stark white environment of the future is now a thing of the past. As humans, we innately connect to natural materials and colours, he says, with Dezeen describing the overall concept as homely.

The Von Braun may be more akin to a log cabin than a space station, with lightweight, easily cleanable natural material substitutes for stone and wood that would normally not be feasible to bring into orbit.

Another comparison being mentioned is that of a cruise ship. But its not all dining and decadence. For those who want to keep fit, sporting activities like basketball and rock climbing are on offer. In an exciting twist these can be done at low gravity, giving regular visitors the ability of a world pro without the years of training and aching limbs.

The Von Braun seems even more sci-fi with the news it will be put together by robots and drones, though presumably the parts will be manufactured this side of the atmosphere.

Coming back down to Earth, the naming of the hotel after Von Braun may be seen as controversial by some. The former director of NASAs Marshall Space Flight Center is certainly an apt choice, with his ideas fuelling the project in the first place. Yet his early background with the Nazi Party could cause some to feel uncomfortable. Still, the whole point of this epic tribute is to look forwards rather than back.

The Foundation are aiming to open the Von Braun in 2025. There are also plans to launch 2 other stations by 2030, with the trio hosting thousands of eager space travelers.

Cost is clearly a defining factor such an experience wont come cheap. A case of one small step for Man and one giant bill for Mankind. But its hoped as time goes on, leaving Earth will be as commonplace as jumping in a car to Disneyland. With corporate entities such as SpaceX developing commercial space flights, the idea is for everything to come together sooner rather than later.

Related Article: NASA Astronaut Accused of Committing Worlds First Space Crime

The dream of the Gateway Foundation is to create starship culture, says Alatorre, where there is a permanent community of space-faring people living and working in Earths orbit and beyond.

Continue reading here:

A Room with a Galactic View Inside the Worlds First Space Hotel - The Vintage News

Asteroid alert: A space rock was spotted two weeks ago and now its flying towards Earth – Express.co.uk

The asteroid, dubbed by NASA 2019 SC, was first observed in the solar system on September 6 this year. NASAs asteroid trackers have now said the space rock is flying towards us on a Close Approach trajectory. The asteroid is expected to approach Earth later tonight around 7.37pm BST (6.37pm UTC). At its closest, the asteroid will scrape by almost as close as the Moon is.

Asteroid 2019 SC is an Apollo-type rock on a trajectory similar to Asteroid 1862 Apollo.

NASA has also ranked Asteroid SC as an NEO or Near-Earth Object.

NEOs are all comets and asteroids that come close to Earth on their orbits of the inner solar system.

The European Space Agency (ESA) estimates there are currently 20,756 known NEOs in the system.

READ MORE: Hand out the Bibles' is the only 24h asteroid warning needed

Out of these objects, 877 have made it onto ESAs NEO Risk List.

Thankfully, Asteroid SC is too small to be considered a real danger to the planet.

NASA estimates the rock measures somewhere in the range of 29.2ft to 65.6ft (8.9 m to 20m) across.

But the asteroid could still pack a punch if it entered the atmosphere undetected.

READ MORE:Only cockroaches will survive major asteroid impact, expert warns

An incident like this took place in 2013 when a 65.6ft-wide (20m) entered the skies above Russias Chelyabinsk Oblast.

The space rock exploded mid-flight, blowing out windows in a wide radius and injuring more than 1,000 people with shards of glass.

Tonight, however, the asteroid will near-miss our planet from a safe distance.

According to NASAs Center for Near Earth Object Studies, the asteroid will give Earth a wide berth of around 0.00360 au.

READ MORE: How often do asteroids hit Earth? What is the danger

Just one au measures the distance between our home planet and the Sun about 93 million miles (149.6 million km).

In other words, Asteroid SC will miss Earth from a distance of 334,640 miles (538,552km) or 1.4 times as far as the Moon is.

NASA said: As they orbit the Sun, Near-Earth Objects can occasionally approach close to Earth.

Note that a close passage astronomically can be very far away in human terms: millions or even tens of millions of kilometres.

Read more here:

Asteroid alert: A space rock was spotted two weeks ago and now its flying towards Earth - Express.co.uk

Indian Moon Probe’s Failure Won’t Stop an Asian Space Race That Threatens Regional Security – Space.com

This article was originally published atThe Conversation.The publication contributed the article to Space.com'sExpert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

On Sept. 7, India's Chandrayaan-2 lunar mission deployed its Vikram lander for an attempted landing at the Moons south pole.Communications with the lander were lostjust minutes prior to the scheduled landing. Recent imaging suggests that Vikram may have survived the landing intact, but it might be unable to communicate. No matter the outcome, the mission has already proved successful as Chandrayaan-2 continues to orbit the Moon.

Chandrayaan-2 adds to the list of Indias recent accomplishments in space. This probe was sent on a scientific mission, but Indias achievements in space includeother military developments, all of which reflect a challenge to China. Though some are warning of aspace race between the U.S. and China, I suggest the real space race is happening in Asia.

This year alone, both China and India have landed, or attempted to land, probes on the moon. These types of missions are one way to achieve international prestige. But they also peacefully demonstrate capabilities that could be used in conflict. Frommy perspective as a space policy analyst, Indias space activities, combined with itsescalating tensions with Pakistan, contribute to increasing regional tension.

Employees of India's space agency react with disappointment at news of lost contact with the Vikram lunar lander.

(Image credit: ISRO)

Most international observers have focused, with good reason, on Indias nuclear ambitions. Like its nuclear program, Indias space programtraces its origins to the 1950s, though the Indian Space Research Organization was not formed until 1969. Early on, the Indian Space Research Organization focused on design and fabrication of satellites. Later, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it concentrated on the development of its own rockets. Since then, India has developed severalreliable and powerful rocketsincluding its Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle and Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle.

India has used its expertise to foster a growing commercial space sector.It sells extra space on its Polar Satellite Launch Vehicleto commercial companies, which has generated significant income for the Indian Space Research Organization.India recently approved the creationof a private institution,NewSpace India Limited, to facilitate technology transfers and market space-centric industries.

Indias first Moon mission, the orbiterChandrayaan-1, launched in 2008,contributed to the discovery of water on the moon. In 2014, theMars Orbiter Missionmade India the fourth entity to send a mission to the Red Planet after the U.S., Russia and the European Space Agency. The ultimate goal of the current Chandrayaan-2 mission was to deploy a lander and rover on the Moon's south pole to further explore potential water deposits. India also strives tolaunch its own astronautsinto space by 2022.

These efforts have been primarily civilian and peaceful in nature. Indias turn toward themilitary uses of spacebegan only in the 1990s. With greater frequency India is developing its own military satellites providing services such as remote sensing, tracking and communications.India's missiles are benefittedby technology developed at ISRO and their increasing capabilities reflects their concerns with not just Pakistan, but China.

Since the establishment of the Chinese communist state,conflict between the two states has come on several fronts. There have been several clashes over disputed territorial boundaries and, as rising economic powers governed by different ideologies, India and China continue to battle for regional and international preeminence.

Chinas own accomplishments have served as motivation for Indian developments. For instance,China's nuclear tests in 1964 encouragedthe Indian nuclear program, which conducted its own nuclear tests in 1974. In space, China has expanded its scientific, civilian and military activities with an active human spaceflight program and its own program of lunar missions. In January of 2019, Chang'e-4 successfully landed on the far side of the Moon andjust recently discoveredan unknown gel-like substance.

India continues to feel pressure from its Chinese neighbor. FollowingChina's anti-satellite test in 2008, India began development of its own space weapons. In March 2019,India successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon: a missile, launched from the ground, that destroyed one of its own satellites in low Earth orbit. Like previous anti-satellite tests performed by the U.S., Russia and China, there wereimmediate concerns about debris. Despite this, India clearly intendedto send a message to Chinaand others, signaling their ability to not only protect their own satellites but destroy threatening Chinese ones as well.

These more aggressive moves fit in with other recent Indian actions. In August,India withdrew the special status of Kashmirthat largely allowed the region to set its own laws. India thendeployed troops to the region, arrested several hundred Kashmiri politicians and moved to sever communication links between Kashmir and the rest of the region.

These actions, along with Indias space activities, do not go unnoticed by Pakistan. As analystsMian Zahid Hussain and Raja Qaiser Ahmed write, Pakistan feels more insecure under Indias low earth orbit satellites and dominant surveillance and espionage capabilities. This insecurity, combined with Indias behavior toward Kashmir, could prompt Pakistan to develop anti-satellite weapons and other space technologies. If this starts an arms race, it would introduce more instability in an already delicate region.

In a speech following the loss of communication with the Vikram lander, Indian Prime MinisterNarendra Modi said, We are proud of our space program and scientists, their hard work and determination. (They) ensure a better life, not only for our citizens, but also for other nations. Like other space powers, India is seeking to improve its technology and way of life, but advances can also bring greater security concerns.

Wendy Whitman Cobb, Professor of Strategy and Security Studies, US Air Force School of Advanced Air and Space Studies

This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates and become part of the discussion on Facebook and Twitter. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Read this article:

Indian Moon Probe's Failure Won't Stop an Asian Space Race That Threatens Regional Security - Space.com

Women Honoring Women – WAAY

Speech to Text for Women Honoring Women

Below is the closed-captioning text associated with this video. Since this uses automated speech to text spelling and grammar may not be accurate.

waay 31 is a proud sponsor of the women honoring women event. i learned more about one of the five honorees, jody singer and her journey to where she is today. singer is the first woman director of nasa's marshall space flight center. jody singer is a native of north alabama. she graduated from hartselle high school received a degree from the university of alabma in industrial engineering. she told me at an early age she developed a love for science. it was her mother encouraged her to continue on that path. 15:49:42:05 when i told her i was interested in engineering, she encouraged me to shadow me a manager at her work. he told me about engineering and management asked me some of my interest and he encouraged me to go into industrial engineering. i went to ua and that's what i studied and it was great advice. after college singer worked at general motors for a year. "at that time, nasa was not hiring. i put in an application for nasa and when i got the call from nasa, they asked me if i would like to work for nasa. i chose to come work for nasa and to be back in north alabama. it's been the best decision i've ever made." singer is now in her 25 year at nasa and is currently the director of the marshall space flight center. as marshall's director, singer leads one of nasa's largest field installations, with almost 6,000 civil service and contractor employees and an annual budget of approximately $2.8 billion. 15:37:41:14 i also played a part in the fly out of the shuttle, the successful fly out. i've worked on international space station and the development of the space launch system, which would be the next heavy lift vehicle taking humans and their systems to deep space by 2024. today, i am the 14th senate director at marshall space flight center and very proud to say, the first woman. singer says throught her career she has faced many opsticals. she had to learn to believe in herself... 15:41:17:07 i had to accept that i was going to be different and that my leadership style was going to be different. as a result of having great mentors, they also helped me understand myself. as a result of it, i grew my own leadership style and developed my own recipe. as a result of it, i was able to be more able and more confident as a leader and to be a better leader and to also be able to empower more people. based on that feedback i've gotten, it helped me to develop some of those skills that i needed. one of them being communication and presentation skills. she says throughout her career, mentors played a huge role in her development and success. 15:39:43:11 the women made a huge difference in my life. they looked at it a little different. they learned how to balance life and work--being a mom and being a leader and helping me see that there's many ways in which you could be a leader and how you can have it all. but you have to be willing to balance it and take care of yourself. if you can't take care of yourself, it's hard to take care of your people and it is very hard to take care of your family she offers this advice to other women with big dreams. 15:44:18:16 i would say, number one, believe in yourself. number two, make sure that you surround yourself with the right people and that you have the support you need. don't do job all by yourself. it's all a team. take the chances. there are opportunities out there. you just have to be

Read the original post:

Women Honoring Women - WAAY

ISRO, DRDO join hands for Gaganyaan project – BusinessLine

The human space mission of ISRO will get a boost with the DRDO joining hands to jointly develop systems that will aid and enhance flight capabilities. ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) is on course to its target of sending Indian astronauts to space by 2022 under the Gaganyaan project, which entails an investment of 10,000 crore.

The Space Agencys Director, Human Space Flight Centre (HSFC), S Unnikrishnan led a team that signed a set of MoUs with various DRDO (Defence Research Development Organisation) labs to develop technologies specific to the human space mission, on Tuesday.

Speaking on the occasion, G Satheesh Reddy said the technological capabilities existing in DRDO laboratories for defence applications will be customised to meet the requirements of the human space mission of ISRO. Some of the critical technologies to be provided include space food, space crew health monitoring, emergency survival kit, and parachutes for the safe recovery of the crew module and others.

Director General (Life Sciences), AK Singh, said technologies would be customised and work has already begun to meet the stringent timelines.

The ISRO has planned a couple of trial flights by 2021.

During the recent visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Russia, an agreement was signed wherein Russia will help train Indian astronauts in its facilities. ISRO has shortlisted 10 probable candidates from the Indian Air Force for the training.

According to plans, Gaganyaan will see at least three Indian astronauts fly into space.

Read more here:

ISRO, DRDO join hands for Gaganyaan project - BusinessLine

Isro signs MoUs with DRDO labs for Human Space Mission – Business Standard

The Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) has signed MoUs with various Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) labs to provide technologies for human-centric systems and technologies specific to the Human Space Mission.

A delegation of Isro scientists, led by Director, Human Space Flight Centre (HSFC) S Unnikrishnan Nair signed a set of MoUs with various DRDO labs.

Secretary, Department of Defence R&D and Chairman DRDO, Dr G Satheesh Reddy said that the technological capabilities existing in DRDO laboratories for defence applications will be customised to meet the requirements of Isro's human space mission. Some of the critical technologies to be provided by DRDO to Isro include space food, space crew health monitoring and emergency survival kit, radiation measurement and protection, and parachutes for safe recovery of crew module.

DG (Life Sciences), Dr A K Singhadded, DRDO is committed to provide all necessary support to Isro for the human space flight and customisation of the required technologies has already been initiated to meet the stringent timelines.

Isro aims to demonstrate human spaceflight capability before the 75th anniversary of Indias independence in 2022.

View original post here:

Isro signs MoUs with DRDO labs for Human Space Mission - Business Standard

What neuroscientists are learning about our brains in space by launching themselves into zero gravity flight – The Conversation – UK

More than 500 people have travelled into space to date and, while we know a little about how life without gravity affects our physical health, we know almost nothing about how it affects our minds.

So, my colleagues and I have been launching ourselves, rigs of equipment and our participants into zero gravity flight to perform experiments. Its a thrilling and sometimes extremely nauseating life, but its opening new windows into how we think and perceive differently in space. This is no doubt important if we want to colonise outer space.

Weightlessness is a key component of the spaceflight experience. Since the first space missions, however, its been clear weightlessness causes a variety of health issues particularly degrading muscle mass, causing disorientation and blurred vision.

This should not be surprising as all living organisms have evolved under the constant 1g of gravitational force. But we also need to find out how weightlessness influences our perception and behaviour. Without going to the International Space Station (ISS), the best way to do this is on a zero gravity flight. During these flights, a refitted Airbus A310 aircraft follows the trajectory of a parabola. This means it alternates between rises and descents, at a 45 angle of inclination.

Each parabola starts with a pull-up acceleration phase in which the gravitational load is double Earth gravity (hypergravity, 2g). This lasts about 20 seconds. The pilots then let the aircraft drop into free-fall. For the next 20 seconds, everything and everybody on board the aircraft is exposed to weightlessness (microgravity, 0g). Once the craft reaches a particular angle of tilt, the pilots perform a pull-out acceleration, in which gravity is again double. This is repeated up to 30 times and the entire flight lasts around three hours.

Doing science on these roller coaster parabolic flight manoeuvres is very challenging. There are severe constraints on time. Whatever the experiment requires, it has to be performed in about 20 seconds.

Because several experiments must go up together, space is also tight. So, forget the comfort of a lab. Instead, visualise a 1.5 x 1.5 metres allocated habitat in which your equipment, experimenters and participants all need to fit. You cant risk mistakes so each experimental step, even each movement, needs to be perfectly planned. These movements must also be perfectly synchronised with drops and lifts of the plane. Like a dance, we choreograph and rehearse in the days before lift off.

To me, the real challenge of doing science on a parabolic flight is dealing with motion sickness. It is not by chance that parabolic flights have earned the nickname Vomit Comet.

On Earth, we have a system in our inner ear that tells us the direction and amount of gravitational pull, relative to the position of our heads (the vestibular system). In weighlessness, the 1g pull we have experienced our whole lives disappears. The vestibular system can no longer function as it should, often leading to space motion sickness (which mimics a severe car motion sickness), nausea and vomiting.

Why embark on such an adventure? This is the ultimate frontier of understanding how the brain can adapt to new environments and demands in microgravity. On a practical level, understanding the brains response to weightlessness is necessary to ensure the success and safety of future manned space missions.

We have also been investigating the effect of gravity on the perception of our own body weight. So far research has looked largely at how society and culture affects body weight perception. And we know that body satisfaction, body image and risk for eating disorders play a role.

However, the true weight of our body like any other object on Earth depends on the pull of gravity. Because of this, we predicted the way we perceive our own body weight would also be dependent on the pull of gravity. We asked participants to estimate the weight of their hand and their head both in normal terrestrial gravity and during exposure to microgravity and hypergravity on a European Space Agency parabolic flight campaign at the German Aerospace Center (DLR Cologne).

We showed that alterations of gravity produced rapid changes in perceived weight: there was an increase in perceived weight during hypergravity, and a decrease during microgravity.

While this might seem obvious our actual weight changes accordingly its important, because perceptions of our body weight, shape and position are critical to successful movement and interactions with our surroundings. The fact that we are researching such basic things just goes to show how little we actually know about it. Imagine, for example, that you are an astronaut operating levers to control a robotic space arm. Misunderstanding the weight of your own arm could cause you to pull too hard, swinging the arm into the side of your spacecraft.

Ultimately, we aim to understand how the human brain builds a representation of gravity and uses it in cognition to guide behaviour. We have previously shown that gravity may influence how we make decisions, with a lack of it potentially making us more risk-averse. This sort of research has never been more timely and it yields advantages for enhancing human performance in upcoming space exploration.

We may have underestimated the effects of gravity on our cognition so far because gravity is so stable on Earth. It is arguably the most persistent sensory signal in the brain. I predict the next couple of decades will reveal a lot about how gravity has been affecting the way we think, feel and act without us even noticing.

In the meantime, I am enjoying the ride weightlessness is the best experience I have ever had. The pilots announce 3, 2, 1, INJECT, and there you are floating. There are no bodily constraints, just effortless movements and unpredicted movements of your limbs that lead to euphoria, excitement and enhanced awareness of your body. It is very hard to sum up experience I can only say its a feeling of awe and freedom.

Continued here:

What neuroscientists are learning about our brains in space by launching themselves into zero gravity flight - The Conversation - UK

Introducing VPLanet: A virtual planet simulator for modeling distant worlds across time – UW Today

News releases | Research | Science | Technology

September 19, 2019

University of Washington astrobiologist Rory Barnes and co-authors have created VPLanet, a software package that simulates multiple aspects of planetary evolution across billions of years, with an eye toward finding and studying potentially habitable worlds.ESA/Hubble, NASA

University of Washington astrobiologist Rory Barnes has created software that simulates multiple aspects of planetary evolution across billions of years, with an eye toward finding and studying potentially habitable worlds.

Barnes, a UW assistant professor of astrobiology, astronomy and data science, released the first version of VPLanet, his virtual planet simulator, in August. He and his co-authors described it in a paper accepted for publication in the Proceedings of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific.

It links different physical processes together in a coherent manner, he said, so that effects or phenomena that occur in some part of a planetary system are tracked throughout the entire system. And ultimately the hope is, of course, to determine if a planet is able to support life or not.

VPLanets mission is three-fold, Barnes and co-authors write. The software can:

The first version includes modules for the internal and magnetic evolution of terrestrial planets, climate, atmospheric escape, tidal forces, orbital evolution, rotational effects, stellar evolution, planets orbiting binary stars and the gravitational perturbations from passing stars.

Its designed for easy growth. Fellow researchers can write new physical modules and almost plug and play them right in, Barnes said. VPLanet can also be used to complement more sophisticated tools such as machine learning algorithms.

An important part of the process, he said, is validation, or checking physics models against actual previous observations or past results, to confirm that they are working properly as the system expands.

Then we basically connect the modules in a central area in the code that can model all members of a planetary system for its entire history, Barnes said.

And though the search for potentially habitable planets is of central importance, VPLanet can be used for more general inquiries about planetary systems.

We observe planets today, but they are billions of years old, he said. This is a tool that allows us to ask: How do various properties of a planetary system evolve over time?

The projects history dates back almost a decade to a Seattle meeting of astronomers called Revisiting the Habitable Zone convened by Victoria Meadows, principal investigator of the UW-based Virtual Planetary Laboratory, with Barnes. The habitable zone is the swath of space around a star that allows for orbiting rocky planets to be temperate enough to have liquid water at their surface, giving life a chance.

They recognized at the time, Barnes said, that knowing if a planet is within its stars habitable zone simply isnt enough information: So from this meeting we identified a whole host of physical processes that can impact a planets ability to support and retain water.

Barnes discussed VPLanet and presented a tutorial on its use at the recent AbSciCon19 worldwide astrobiology conference, held in Seattle.

The research was done through the Virtual Planetary Laboratory and the source code is available online.

Barness other faculty co-authors are astronomy professor Tom Quinn; Cecilia Bitz, professor of atmospheric sciences; and research scientist Pramod Gupta. Other UW co-authors are doctoral students David Fleming, Rodolfo Garcia, and Hayden Smotherman; and undergraduate researchers Caitlyn Wilhelm, Benjamin Guyer and Diego McDonald.

Other co-authors are Peter Driscoll of the Carnegie Institution for Science; Rodrigo Luger of the Flatiron Institute, Patrick Barth of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, Russell Deitrick of the University of Bern, Shawn Domagal-Goldman of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and John Armstrong of Weber State University.

The research was funded by a grant from the NASA Astrobiology Programs Virtual Planetary Laboratory team, as part of the Nexus for Exoplanet System Science research coordination network, or NExSS.

###

For more information, contact Barnes at 206-543-8979 or rkb9@uw.edu.

Grant numbers

VPL under cooperative agreement #NNA13AA93A

NASA grants #NNX15AN35G, #13-13-NA17 0024, and #80NSSC18K0829

NASA Earth and Space Science Fellowship Program grant #80NSSC17K0482

Here is the original post:

Introducing VPLanet: A virtual planet simulator for modeling distant worlds across time - UW Today

ISRO, DRDO sign MoU to develop critical technologies for the 2022 Gaganyaan mission – Firstpost

Press Trust of IndiaSep 18, 2019 08:18:14 IST

The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) on Tuesday inked MoUs with the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for development of human-centric systems for the Gaganyaan project, the Defence Ministry said.

Some of the critical technologies to be provided by the DRDO to ISRO include space food, space crew health monitoring and emergency survival kit, radiation measurement and protection, parachutes for safe recovery of crew module, the ministry said in a statement.

A delegation of ISRO scientists, led by Director of Human Space Flight Centre (HSFC) Dr S Unnikrishnan Nair, signed a set of MoUs with various DRDO labs here to provide technologies for human-centric systems and technologies specific to the Human Space Mission, it said.

The Human Space Flight Centre team, ISRO chairman K Sivan and ex-Chairman K Kasturirangan stand in front of the Gaganyaan crew module replica at the inauguration. Image: ISRO

The MoUs were signed by directors of the Aerial Delivery Research & Development Establishment (ADRDE), Defence Food Research Laboratory (DFRL), Defence Bio-Engineering & Electro Medical Laboratory (DEBEL), Defence Laboratory (DL) Jodhpur, Centre for Fire, Explosive & Environment Safety (CFEES), Defence Institute of Physiology & Allied Sciences (DIPAS) and Institute of Nuclear Medicine & Allied Sciences (INMAS) in the presence of DRDO Chairman Dr G Satheesh Reddy and Scientist & Director General (Life Sciences), Dr A K Singh.

Speaking on the occasion, Satheesh Reddy said the technological capabilities existing in DRDO laboratories for defence applications will be customised to meet the requirements of the human space mission of ISRO.

Singh said the DRDO is committed to provide all necessary support to ISRO for the human space flight and customisation of the required technologies has already been initiated to meet the stringent timelines.

ISRO aims to demonstrate human spaceflight capability before the 75th anniversary of India's independence in 2022.

Read more from the original source:

ISRO, DRDO sign MoU to develop critical technologies for the 2022 Gaganyaan mission - Firstpost

SpaceFlight Insider – Official Site

February 12thThe European Space Agency announced that its ExoMars rover will be named Rosalind Franklin. It and a Russian lander are scheduled for a July 2020 launch.

February 11thA new set of New Horizons flyby images taken on New Year's Day 2019 reveals Ultima Thule is shaped more like a flat object.

February 10thNumerous planetary systems are visible in the final images taken by NASA's Kepler telescope on Sept. 25, 2018, just before it ran out of fuel.

February 8thEach ISS module is designed with micrometeoroid debris protection. A recent survey of the Columbus module shows the importance of that shielding.

February 7thToday, NASA paused to reflect and remember those that gave the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit of space exploration in its annual Day of Remembrance ceremony.

February 7thTwin tiny satellites launched with NASA's Mars InSight lander have been out of touch with mission controllers on Earth for slightly over a month.

February 3rdCAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. Have you seen UFOs? Are aliens real? My response to this line of questioning is almost always the same and, usually, not suitable for print.

February 3rdNASA's Curiosity rove has measured the gravity on Mount Sharp in much the same way Apollo 17 astronauts measured the Moon's gravity in 1972.

February 2ndBlue Origin's New Glenn rocket has been selected by Telesat to send a fleet of satellites into orbit to help improve web services around the globe.

January 31stParker Solar Probe is pulling back the curtains of our parent star and is well on its way to rewriting humanity's understanding of how stars work.

January 30thOne of the first flights on Rocket Lab's 2019 launch manifest is a satellite for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

January 29thThe vast jungles of French Guiana echoed with the sounds of a different type of thunder other than the natural kind on Monday Jan. 28. An artificial roar was generated by a solid rocket motor that is planned for use on the Vega-C rocket Arianespace is developing to launch upcoming missions.

January 28thMini-Cubes, a company just emerging from stealth mode, has been working on the development of a new type of miniature satellite called a PocketQube.

January 27thThe most detailed image of Ultima Thule returned by New Horizons reveals surface details, including pits on both the object's lobes and contrasting patterns of darkness and light in various regions.

January 26thData collected by the Cassini spacecraft in its final oribts has enabled scientists to accurately calculate Saturn's rotation rate and the age of its rings.

View original post here:

SpaceFlight Insider - Official Site

Zero Gravity Flight – Space Adventures

Aboard a specially modified Boeing 727-200, G-FORCE ONE, weightlessness is achieved by doing aerobatic maneuvers known as parabolas. Specially trained pilots perform these aerobatic maneuvers which are not simulated in any way. ZERO-G passengers experience true weightlessness.

Before starting a parabola, G-FORCE ONEflies level to the horizon at an altitude of 24,000 feet. The pilots then begins to pull up, gradually increasing the angle of the aircraft to about 45 to the horizon reaching an altitude of 34,000 feet. During this pull-up, passengers will feel the pull of 1.8 Gs. Next the plane is pushed over to create the zero gravity segment of the parabola. For the next 20-30 seconds everything in the plane is weightless. Next a gentle pull-out is started which allows the flyers to stabilize on the aircraft floor. This maneuver is repeated 12-15 times, each taking about ten miles of airspace to perform.

In addition to achieving zero gravity, G-FORCE ONEalso flies a parabola designed to offer Lunar gravity (one sixth your weight)and Martian gravity (one third your weight). This is created by flying a larger arc over the top of the parabola.

G-FORCE ONEflies in a FAA designated airspace that is approximately 100 miles long and ten miles wide. Usually three to five parabolas are flown consecutively with short periods of level flight between each set.

Go here to read the rest:

Zero Gravity Flight - Space Adventures

Space Coast Honor Flight

Space Coast Honor Flight's (SCHF) mission is to take World War II,Korean War, and VietnamVeterans to visit their War Memorials in Washington D.C. This is a unique opportunity to show our gratitude to these Heroes who made it possible for us to enjoy the freedoms we have today.

Ourtrip's priorities are to ensure thesafety and dignity of our Veterans! To enhance the experience each Veteran is paired with a Guardian escort and has a wheelchair available. This is a long day and there is a fair amount of walking. In addition, we travel with several staff members to include a medical doctor and videographer.

We have seven flights scheduled for our2018Season. Veterans are scheduled based on date of receipt of their application. You may also join the mission as a Guardian Escort, a Volunteer, or just help us locate Veterans!

SCHF Veteran scheduling is based on the following priorities and calls toschedule an actual trip will be made to Veterans in these categories based on the postmark/receipt date of the application:

1. Any Critically Ill Veteran 2. World War II Veterans (Service through 1948) 3. Korean War Veterans (Service 1949 to 1954) 4. Vietnam Veterans (Service 1955 to 1975) 5. Recent conflicts (Service 1976 to present)

In 2017, 40% of our Vets were WWII Vets, 48% were Korean War Vets, and 12% were Vietnam Vets. Most Korean War Vets had an application date of 2015 or earlier. Almost all Vietnam Vets had a medical issue which advanced them on the list.

We have several hundred applications on file and If you have a question about your place on the Veteran list, please send an email with your Name, Phone Number, & Specific Question to:veteran@spacecoasthonorflight.orgor leave a message at our toll free number1-888-750-2522. Our VeteranCoordinator will get back to you.

In addition, ifyourhealth dramatically changes and you believe you should be advanced on the list send an update to the sameemailaddress/phone number and we will get back to you immediately.

You can also help us by donating! Ninetyseven cents (97%) of every dollar gotoward taking our Vets to DC.

Space Coast Honor Flight Never Solicits byphone or door to door.

SCHF is a 501(c)3, all-volunteer organization with no paid employees. We rely on Grants and generous donations from individuals, organizations, and corporations to fund our Veteran mission.

Contact us today for more information:

A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING TOLL-FREE WITHIN THE STATE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.

1-800-HELP-FLA (435-7352) http://www.FloridaConsumerHelp.com

Registration Number: CH34630

Read the rest here:

Space Coast Honor Flight

Space flight simulation game – Wikipedia

A space flight simulation game is a genre of flight simulator video games that lets players experience space flight to varying degrees of realism. Many games feature space combat, and some games feature commerce and trading in addition to combat.

Some games in the genre aim to recreate a realistic portrayal of space flight, involving the calculation of orbits within a more complete physics simulation than pseudo space flight simulators. Others focus on gameplay rather than simulating space flight in all its facets. The realism of the latter games is limited to what the game designer deems to be appropriate for the gameplay, instead of focusing on the realism of moving the spacecraft in space. Some "flight models" use a physics system based on Newtonian physics, but these are usually limited to maneuvering the craft in its direct environment, and do not take into consideration the orbital calculations that would make such a game a simulator. Many of the pseudo simulators feature faster than light travel.

Examples of true simulators which aim at piloting a space craft in a manner that conforms with the laws of nature include Orbiter, Kerbal Space Program and Microsoft Space Simulator. Examples of more fantastical video games that bend the rules of physics in favor of streamlining and entertainment, include Wing Commander, Star Wars: X-Wing and Freelancer.

The modern space flight game genre emerged at the point when home computers became sufficiently powerful to draw basic wireframe graphics in real-time.[1] The game Elite is widely considered to be the breakthrough game of the genre,[1][2][3] and as having successfully melded the "space trading" and flight sim genres.[4] Elite was highly influential upon later games of its type, although it did have some precursors. Games similar to Elite are sometimes called "Elite-clones".[5][6][7][8]

Space flight games and simulators, at one time popular, had for much of the new millennium been considered a "dead" genre.[9][10][11][12][13] However, open-source and enthusiast communities managed to produce some working, modern titles (e.g. Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator); and 2011's commercially released Kerbal Space Program was notably well-received, even by the aerospace community.[14] Some more recent games, most notably Star Citizen, Elite: Dangerous, and No Mans Sky, have brought new attention to the space trading and combat game subgenre.

Realistic space simulators seek to represent a vessel's behaviour under the influence of the laws of physics.As such, the player normally concentrates on following checklists or planning tasks. Piloting is generally limited to dockings, landings or orbital maneuvers. The reward for the player is on mastering real or realistic spacecraft, celestial mechanics and astronautics.

Classical games with this approach include Space Shuttle: A Journey into Space (1982), Rendezvous: A Space Shuttle Simulation (1982),[4] The Halley Project (1985), Shuttle (1992) and Microsoft Space Simulator (1994).

If the definition is expanded to include decision making and planning, then Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space (1992) is also notable for historical accuracy and detail. On this game the player takes the role of Administrator of NASA or Head of the Soviet Space Program with the ultimate goal of being the first side to conduct a successful manned moon landing.

Most recently Orbiter and Space Shuttle Mission 2007 provide more elaborate simulations, with realistic 3D virtual cockpits and external views.

Kerbal Space Program[15] can be considered a space simulator, even though it portrays an imaginary universe with tweaked physics, masses and distances to enhance gameplay. Nevertheless, the physics and rocket design principles are much more realistic than in the space combat or trading subgenres.

The game Lunar Flight (2012) simulates flying around the lunar surface in a craft resembling the Apollo Lunar Module.

Most games in the space combat[16] genre feature futuristic scenarios involving space flight and extra planetary combat. Such games generally place the player into the controls of a small starfighter or smaller starship in a military force of similar and larger spaceships and do not take into account the physics of space flight, usually often citing some technological advancement to explain the lack thereof. The prominent Wing Commander, X-Wing and Freespace series all use this approach. Exceptions include the first Independence War and the Star Trek: Bridge Commander series, which model craft at a larger scale and/or in a more strategic fashion. It should be noted that I-War also features Newtonian style physics for the behaviour of the spacecraft, but not orbital mechanics.

Space combat games tend to be mission-based, as opposed to the more open-ended nature of space trading and combat games.

The general formula for the space trading and combat game,[17][18][19][20] which has changed little since its genesis, is for the player to begin in a relatively small, outdated ship with little money or status and for the player to work his or her way up, gaining in status and power through trading, exploration, combat or a mix of different methods.[21][22][1] The ship the player controls is generally larger than that in pure space combat simulator. Notable examples of the genre include Elite, Wing Commander: Privateer, and Freelancer.

In some instances, plot plays only a limited role and only a loose narrative framework tends to be provided. In certain titles of the X series, for instance, players may ignore the plot for as long as they wish and are even given the option to disable the plot completely and instead play in sandbox mode.[21] Many games of this genre place a strong emphasis on factional conflict, leading to many small mission-driven subplots that unravel the tensions of the galaxy.

Games of this type often allow the player to choose among multiple roles to play and multiple paths to victory. This aspect of the genre is very popular, but some people have complained that, in some titles, the leeway given to the player too often is only superficial, and that, in reality, the roles offered to players are very similar, and open-ended play too frequently restricted by scripted sequences.[21] As an example, Freelancer has been criticised for being too rigid in its narrative structure,[22][23] being in one case compared negatively with Grand Theft Auto,[23] another series praised for its open-ended play.[24]

All space trading and combat games feature the core gameplay elements of directly controlling the flight of some sort of space vessel, generally armed, and of navigating from one area to another for a variety of reasons. As technology has improved it has been possible to implement a number of extensions to gameplay, such as dynamic economies and cooperative online play. Overall, however, the core gameplay mechanics of the genre have changed little over the years.

Some recent games, such as 2003's EVE Online, have expanded the scope of the experience by including thousands of simultaneous online players in what is sometimes referred to as a "living universe"[21][25][26]a dream some have held since the genre's early beginnings.[27] Star Citizen, a title currently in open, crowd-funded development by Chris Roberts and others involved in Freelancer and Wing Commander, aims to bridge the gap between the EVE-like living universe game and the fast action of other games in the genre.[28]

An additional sub-class of space trading games eliminate combat entirely, focusing instead entirely on trading and economic manipulation in order to achieve success.[citation needed]

Most modern space flight games on the personal computer allow a player to utilise a combination of the WASD keys of the keyboard and mouse as a means of controlling the game (games such as Microsoft's Freelancer use this control system exclusively[23]). By far the most popular control system among genre enthusiasts, however, is the joystick.[12] Most fans prefer to use this input method whenever possible,[23] but expense and practicality mean that many are forced to use the keyboard and mouse combination (or gamepad if such is the case). The lack of uptake among the majority of modern gamers has also made joysticks a sort of an anachronism, though some new controller designs[12] and simplification of controls offer the promise that space sims may be playable in their full capacity on gaming consoles at some time in the future.[12] In fact, X3: Reunion, sometimes considered one of the more cumbersome and difficult series to master within the trading and combat genre,[29][30] was initially planned for the Xbox but later cancelled.[31]Another example of space simulators is an arcade space flight simulation action game called Star Conflict, where the players can fight in both PvE and PvP modes.

Realistic simulators feature spacecraft systems and instrument simulation, using a combination of extensive keyboard shortcuts and mouse clicks on virtual instrument panels. Most of the maneuvers and operations consist of setting certain systems into the desired configuration, or in setting autopilots. Real time hands on piloting can happen, depending on the simulated spacecraft. For example, it is common to use a joystick analog control to land a space shuttle (or any other spaceplane) or the LEM (or similar landers). Dockings can be performed more precisely using the numerical keypad.Overall, the simulations have more complex control systems than game, with the limit being the physical reproduction of the actual simulated spacecraft (see Simulation cockpit).

Early attempts at 3D space simulation date back as far as 1974's Spasim, an online multi-player space simulator in which players attempt to destroy each other's ships.

The earliest known space trader dates to 1974's Star Trader, a game where the entire interface was text-only and included a star map with multiple ports buying and selling 6 commodities. It was written in BASIC.

Elite has made a lasting impression on developers, worldwide, extending even into different genres. In interviews, senior producers of CCP Games cited Elite as one of the inspirations for their acclaimed MMORPG, EVE Online.[3][33][34] rlfur Beck, CCP's co-founder, credits Elite as the game that impacted him most on the Commodore 64.[3] Developers of Jumpgate Evolution, Battlecruiser 3000AD, Infinity: The Quest for Earth, Hard Truck: Apocalyptic Wars and Flatspace likewise all claim Elite as a source of inspiration.[2][35][36][37][38]

Elite was named one of the sixteen most influential games in history at Telespiele, a German technology and games trade show,[39] and is being exhibited at such places as the London Science Museum in the "Game On" exhibition organized and toured by the Barbican Art Gallery.[40] Elite was also named #12 on IGN's 2000 "Top 25 PC Games of All Time" list,[41] the #3 most influential video game ever by the Times Online in 2007,[42] and "best game ever" for the BBC Micro by Beebug Magazine in 1984.[43] Elite's sequel, Frontier: Elite II, was named #77 on PC Zone's "101 Best PC Games Ever" list in 2007.[44] Similar praise has been bestowed elsewhere in the media from time to time.[45][46][47][48][49]

Elite is one of the most popularly requested games to be remade,[30] and some argue that it is still the best example of the genre to date, with more recent titlesincluding its sequelnot rising up to its level.[22][1] It has been credited as opening the door for future online persistent worlds, such as Second Life and World of Warcraft,[42] and as being the first truly open-ended game.[24][50] It is to this day one of the most ambitious games ever made, residing in only 22 kilobytes of memory and on a single floppy disk.[25] The latest incarnation of the franchise, titled Elite: Dangerous, was released on 16 December 2014, following a successful Kickstarter campaign.

Though not as well known as Elite, Trade Wars is noteworthy as the first multiplayer space trader. A BBS door, Trade Wars was released in 1984[51] as an entirely different branch of the space trader tree, having been inspired by Hunt the Wumpus, the board game Risk, and the original space trader, Star Trader. As a pure space trader, Trade Wars lacked any space flight simulator elements, instead featuring abstract open world trading and combat set in an outer space populated by both human and NPC opponents.[citation needed] In 2009, it was named the #10 best PC game by PC World Magazine.[52]

Elite was not the first game to take flight game mechanics into outer space. Other notable earlier examples include Star Raiders (1979), Space Shuttle: A Journey into Space (1982), Rendezvous: A Space Shuttle Simulation (1982),[4] and Star Trek: Strategic Operations Simulator (1982),[53] which featured five different controls to learn, six different enemies, and 40 different simulation levels of play, making it one of the most elaborate vector games ever released.[54] Other early examples include Nasir Gebelli's 1982 Apple II computer games Horizon V which featured an early radar mechanic and Zenith which allowed the player ship to rotate,[55][56] and Ginga Hyoryu Vifam, which allowed first-person open space exploration with a radar displaying the destination and player/enemy positions as well as an early physics engine where approaching a planet's gravitational field pulls the player towards it.[57] Following Elite were games such as The Halley Project (1985), Echelon (1987) and Microsoft Space Simulator (1994). Star Luster, released for the NES console and arcades in 1985, featured a cockpit view, a radar displaying enemy and base locations, the ability to warp anywhere, and a date system keeping track of the current date.[58][59][60]

Some tabletop and board games, such as Traveller or Merchant of Venus, also feature themes of space combat and trade. Traveller influenced the development of Elite (the main character in Traveller is named "Jamison"; the main character in Elite is named "Jameson") and Jumpgate Evolution.[2][61]

The Wing Commander (19902007) series from Origin Systems, Inc. was a marked departure from the standard formula up to that point, bringing space combat to a level approaching the Star Wars films. Set beginning in the year 2654, and characterized by designer Chris Roberts as "World War II in space", it features a multinational cast of pilots from the "Terran Confederation" flying missions against the predatory, aggressive Kilrathi, a feline warrior race (heavily inspired by the Kzinti of Larry Niven's Known Space universe).[citation needed] Wing Commander (1990) was a best seller and caused the development of competing space combat games, such as LucasArts' X-Wing.[62] Wing Commander eventually became a media franchise consisting of space combat simulation video games, an animated television series, a feature film, a collectible card game, a series of novels, and action figures.

Game designer Chris Crawford said in an interview that Wing Commander "raised the bar for the whole industry", as the game was five times more expensive to create than most of its contemporaries. Because the game was highly successful, other publishers had to match its production value in order to compete. This forced a large portion of the video game industry to become more conservative, as big-budget games need to be an assured hit for it to be profitable in any way. Crawford opined that Wing Commander in particular affected the marketing and economics of computer games and reestablished the "action game" as the most lucrative type of computer game.[63]

The seeming decline of the space flight simulators and games in the late 1990s also coincided with the rise of the RTS, FPS and RPG game genres, with such examples as Warcraft, Doom and Diablo.[12] The very things that made these games classics, such as their open-endedness, complex control systems and attention to detail, have been cited as reasons for their decline.[12][13] It was believed that no major new space sim series would be produced as long as the genre relied on complex control systems such as the keyboard and joystick.[12] There were outliers, however, such as the X series (19992016)[12] and Eve Online.

Crowdfunding has been a good source for space sims in recent years, however. In November 2012 Star Citizen set a new record, managing to raise more than $114 million as of May 2016,[64] and is still under development. Elite: Dangerous was also successfully crowdfunded on Kickstarter in November and December 2012. The game was completed and released in 2014, and expansions are being released in stages, or "seasons". Born Ready Games also closed a successful Kickstarter campaign at the end of 2012, having raised nearly $180,000 to assist with the completion of Strike Suit Zero.[65] The game was completed and released in January 2013. Lastly, the non-linear roguelike-like space shooter Everspace garnered almost $250,000 dollars on Kickstarter, and is currently in Early Access.[66]

No Man's Sky (2016) is another self-published, open-ended space sim (though this one was not crowdfunded). According to the developers, through procedural generation the game is able to produce more than 18 quintillion (7016180000000000000181015 or 18,000,000,000,000,000) planets for players to explore.[67] However, several critics found that the nature of the game can become repetitive and monotonous, with the survival gameplay elements being lackluster and tedious. As summarized by Jake Swearingen in New York, "You can procedurally generate 18.6 quintillion unique planets, but you can't procedurally generate 18.6 quintillion unique things to do."[68] Further, there was considerable disappointment upon its release among players, as players did not feel it lived up to its perceived hype.[69] Players felt that promotional materials were misleading, and the game was not like what was promised during development.[69] In November 2016, the game's developer released the Foundation Update, which added some of the missing features players had initially hoped for.[70] A second update featuring working multiplayer may be forthcoming.[71]

Star Citizen, Elite: Dangerous and No Man's Sky are three ambitious games that many players hoped would fulfill the long-held dream of an open, persistent universe that they can explore, share, and fight each other in.[72] All three succeed and fail at fulfilling this promise in different ways. In a Polygon opinion article, Charlie Hall compared the three games, praising Elite: Dangerous for its look and feel, as well as its combat, but criticizing it for not allowing players to step outside of their ships. He praises Star Citizen's combat module, Arena Commander, but says the persistent universe module is currently unfinished and unstable. He praises No Man's Sky for the letting the player explore and walk on a planet's surface while encountering alien life forms, but says it is least like the others, having poor combat and a smaller scope overall. (The game does not yet have working multiplayer, for instance.[71]) He concludes by writing that players disappointed with any one of the three should be satisfied to try all of them, since each fills its own niche and brings something new and unique to the table.[72]

PC Gamer writer Luke Winkie also compared Star Citizen to No Man's Sky, describing Star Citizen as "the other super ambitious, controversial space sim on the horizon", and indicating that fans of the genre, disappointed in No Man's Sky, were turning to the as-yet-unfinished Star Citizen, while sometimes expressing concerns should the latter fail to deliver.[73] Dan Whitehead of Eurogamer gave the initial release of Elite: Dangerous a score of 8/10 and considered it to be "probably the most immersive and compelling recreation of deep space ever seen in gaming", while finding some of the gameplay repetitive.[74] Other sandbox space sims include the Evochron series (20052015), and the as-of-yet unfinished Infinity.[75]

On March 10, 2013, the space flight simulator Kerbal Space Program reached the top 5 best selling games after its release on Steam.[76]

The open source community has also been active, with projects such as FS2 Open and Vega Strike serving as platforms for non-professional efforts.[13] Unofficial remakes of Elite[citation needed] and Privateer[77] are being developed using the Vega Strike engine, and the latter has reached the stage where it is offered as a working title to the public. In 2013 a hobbyist space flight simulator project was realized under usage of the open source Pioneer software.[78]

More:

Space flight simulation game - Wikipedia

List of human spaceflights – Wikipedia

These chronological lists include all crewed spaceflights that reached an altitude of at least 100km (the FAIdefinition of spaceflight, see Krmn line), or were launched with that intention but failed. The USA has adopted a slightly different definition of spaceflight, requiring an altitude of only 50 miles (80km). During the 1960s, 13 flights of the US X-15 rocket planemet the US criteria, but only two met the FAI's. These lists include only the latter two flights; see the list of highest X-15 flightsfor all 13. As of the launch of Soyuz MS-08 on March 21st 2018, there have been 319 crewed spaceflights that reached 100km or more in altitude (321 attempted crewed flights with two failed attempts), 8 of which were sub-orbital spaceflights.

To date, there have been four fatal missions in which 18 astronauts died.

*Includes the two failed launches of STS-51-L and Soyuz T-10-1.

The Salyut series, Skylab, Mir, ISS, and Tiangong series space stations, with which various of these flights docked in orbit, are not listed separately here. See the detailed lists (links above) for information.

Missions which were intended to reach space but which failed to do are listed in italics, and fatal missions are marked with asterisk.

Read this article:

List of human spaceflights - Wikipedia

Goddard Space Flight Center – Wikipedia

The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is a major NASA space research laboratory located approximately 6.5 miles (10.5km) northeast of Washington, D.C. in Greenbelt, Maryland, United States. Established on May 1, 1959 as NASA's first space flight center, GSFC employs approximately 10,000 civil servants and contractors. It is one of ten major NASA field centers, named in recognition of American rocket propulsion pioneer Dr. Robert H. Goddard.

GSFC is the largest combined organization of scientists and engineers in the United States dedicated to increasing knowledge of the Earth, the Solar System, and the Universe via observations from space. GSFC is a major U.S. laboratory for developing and operating unmanned scientific spacecraft. GSFC conducts scientific investigation, development and operation of space systems, and development of related technologies. Goddard scientists can develop and support a mission, and Goddard engineers and technicians can design and build the spacecraft for that mission. Goddard scientist John C. Mather shared the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on COBE.

GSFC also operates two spaceflight tracking and data acquisition networks (the Space Network and the Near Earth Network), develops and maintains advanced space and Earth science data information systems, and develops satellite systems for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

GSFC manages operations for many NASA and international missions including the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the Explorer program, the Discovery Program, the Earth Observing System (EOS), INTEGRAL, MAVEN, OSIRIS-REx, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), and Swift. Past missions managed by GSFC include the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE), Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, SMM, COBE, IUE, and ROSAT. Typically, unmanned earth observation missions and observatories in Earth orbit are managed by GSFC,[citation needed] while unmanned planetary missions are managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California.[citation needed]

Goddard is NASA's first, and oldest, space center. Its original charter was to perform five major functions on behalf of NASA: technology development and fabrication, planning, scientific research, technical operations, and project management. The center is organized into several directorates, each charged with one of these key functions.

Until May 1, 1959, NASA's presence in Greenbelt, Maryland was known as the Beltsville Space Center. It was then renamed the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), after Dr. Robert H. Goddard. Its first 157 employees transferred from the United States Navy's Project Vanguard missile program, but continued their work at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., while the center was under construction.

Goddard Space Flight Center contributed to Project Mercury, America's first manned space flight program. The Center assumed a lead role for the project in its early days and managed the first 250 employees involved in the effort, who were stationed at Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. However, the size and scope of Project Mercury soon prompted NASA to build a new Manned Spacecraft Center, now the Johnson Space Center, in Houston, Texas. Project Mercury's personnel and activities were transferred there in 1961.

Goddard Space Flight Center remained involved in the manned space flight program, providing computer support and radar tracking of flights through a worldwide network of ground stations called the Spacecraft Tracking and Data Acquisition Network (STDN). However, the Center focused primarily on designing unmanned satellites and spacecraft for scientific research missions. Goddard pioneered several fields of spacecraft development, including modular spacecraft design, which reduced costs and made it possible to repair satellites in orbit. Goddard's Solar Max satellite, launched in 1980, was repaired by astronauts on the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1984. The Hubble Space Telescope, launched in 1990, remains in service and continues to grow in capability thanks to its modular design and multiple servicing missions by the Space Shuttle.

Today, the center remains involved in each of NASA's key programs. Goddard has developed more instruments for planetary exploration than any other organization, among them scientific instruments sent to every planet in the Solar System.[1] The Center's contribution to the Earth Science Enterprise includes several spacecraft in the Earth Observing System fleet as well as EOSDIS, a science data collection, processing, and distribution system. For the manned space flight program, Goddard develops tools for use by astronauts during extra-vehicular activity, and operates the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, a spacecraft designed to study the Moon in preparation for future manned exploration.

Goddard's partly wooded campus is a few miles northeast of Washington, D.C. in Prince George's County. The center is on Greenbelt Road, which is Maryland Route 193. Baltimore, Annapolis, and NASA Headquarters in Washington are 3045 minutes away by highway. Greenbelt also has a train station with access to the Washington Metro system and the MARC commuter train's Camden line.

The High Bay Cleanroom located in building 29 is the world's largest ISO 7 cleanroom with 1.3 million cubic feet of space.[2] Vacuum chambers in adjacent buildings 10 and 7 can be chilled or heated to +/- 200C (392F). Adjacent building 15 houses the High Capacity Centrifuge which is capable of generating 30 G on up to a 2.5 tons load.[3]

Parsons Corporation assisted in the construction of the Class 10,000 cleanroom to support Hubble Space Telescope as well as other Goddard missions.[4]

The High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC) is NASA's designated center for the archiving and dissemination of high energy astronomy data and information. Information on X-ray and gamma-ray astronomy and related NASA mission archives are maintained for public information and science access.[5]

The Software Assurance Technology Center (SATC) is a NASA department founded in 1992 as part of their Systems Reliability and Safety Office at Goddard Space Flight Center. Its purpose was "to become a center of excellence in software assurance, dedicated to making measurable improvement in both the quality and reliability of software developed for NASA at GSFC". The Center has been the source of research papers on software metrics, assurance, and risk management.[6]

The Goddard Visitor Center is open to the public Tuesdays through Sundays, free of charge, and features displays of spacecraft and technologies developed there. The Hubble Space Telescope is represented by models and deep space imagery from recent missions. The center also features a Science On a Sphere projection system.

The center also features an Educator's Resource Center available for use by teachers and education volunteers such as Boy and Girl Scout leaders; and hosts special events during the year. As an example, in September 2008 the Center opened its gates for Goddard LaunchFest (see Goddard LaunchFest Site). The event, free to the public, included; robot competitions, tours of Goddard facilities hosted by NASA employees, and live entertainment on the Goddard grounds.

GSFC operates three facilities that are not located at the Greenbelt site. These facilities are:

GSFC is also responsible for the White Sands Complex, a set of two sites in Las Cruces, NM, but the site is owned by Johnson Space Center as part of the White Sands Test Facility.

Goddard Space Flight Center has a workforce of over 3,000 civil servant employees, 60% of which are engineers and scientists.[7] There are approximately 7,000 supporting contractors on site every day. It is one of the largest concentrations of the world's premier space scientists and engineers. The Center is organized into 8 directorates, which includes Applied Engineering and Technology, Flight Projects, Science and Exploration, and Safety & Mission Assurance.[8]

Co-op students from universities in all 50 States can be found around the campus every season through the Cooperative Education Program.[9] During the summers, programs such as the Summer Institute in Engineering and Computer Applications (SIECA) and Excellence through Challenging Exploration and Leadership (EXCEL) provide internship opportunities to students from the US and territories such as Puerto Rico to learn and partake in challenging scientific and engineering work.

A fact sheet highlighting many of Goddard's previous missions are recorded on a 40th anniversary webpage [10]

Goddard has been involved in designing, building, and operating spacecraft since the days of Explorer 1, the nation's first artificial satellite. The list of these missions reflects a diverse set of scientific objectives and goals. The Landsat series of spacecraft has been studying the Earth's resources since the launch of the first mission in 1972. TIROS-1 launched in 1960 as the first success in a long series of weather satellites. The Spartan platform deployed from the space shuttle, allowing simple, low-cost 2-3 day missions. The second of NASA's Great Observatories, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, operated for nine years before re-entering the Earth's atmosphere in 2000. Another of Goddard's space science observatories, the Cosmic Background Explorer, provided unique scientific data about the early universe.[11]

Goddard currently supports the operation of dozens of spacecraft collecting scientific data. These missions include earth science projects like the Earth Observing System (EOS) that includes the Terra, Aqua, and Aura spacecraft flying alongside several projects from other Centers or other countries. Other major Earth science projects that are currently operating include the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) and the Global Precipitation Measurement mission (GPM), missions that provide data critical to hurricane predictions. Many Goddard projects support other organizations, such as the US Geological Survey on Landsat-7 and -8, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) system that provide weather predictions.

Other Goddard missions support a variety of space science disciplines. Goddard's most famous project is the Hubble Space Telescope, a unique science platform that has been breaking new ground in astronomy for nearly 20 years. Other missions such as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) study the structure and evolution of the universe. Other missions such as the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) are currently studying the Sun and how its behavior affects life on the Earth. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is mapping out the composition and topography of the moon and the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) is tracking the sun's energy and influence on the Earth.

The Goddard community continually works on numerous operations and projects that have launch dates ranging from the upcoming year to a decade down the road. These operations also vary in what scientists hope they will uncover.

Particularly noteworthy operations include: the James Webb Space Telescope which will try to study the history of the universe.[12]

Addressing Scientific Questions

NASA's missions (and therefore Goddard's missions) address a broad range of scientific questions generally classified around four key areas: Earth sciences, astrophysics, heliophysics, and the solar system.[13] To simplify, Goddard studies Earth and Space.[14]

Within the Earth sciences area, Goddard plays a major role in research to advance our understanding of the Earth as an environmental system, looking at questions related to how the components of that environmental system have developed, how they interact and how they evolve. This is all important to enable scientists to understand the practical impacts of natural and human activities during the coming decades and centuries.

Within Space Sciences, Goddard has distinguished itself with the 2006 Nobel Physics Prize given to John Mather and the COBE mission. Beyond the COBE mission, Goddard studies how the universe formed, what it is made of, how its components interact, and how it evolves. The Center also contributes to research seeking to understand how stars and planetary systems form and evolve and studies the nature of the Sun's interaction with its surroundings.

From Scientific Questions to Science Missions

Based on existing knowledge accumulated through previous missions, new science questions are articulated. Missions are developed in the same way an experiment would be developed using the scientific method. In this context, Goddard does not work as an independent entity but rather as one of the 10 NASA centers working together to find answers to these scientific questions.

Each mission starts with a set of scientific questions to be answered, a set of scientific requirements for the mission, which build on what has already been discovered by prior missions. Scientific requirements spell out the types data that will need to be collected. These scientific requirements are then transformed into mission concepts that start to specify the kind of spacecraft and scientific instruments need to be developed for these scientific questions to be answered.

Within Goddard, the Sciences and Exploration Directorate (SED) leads the center's scientific endeavors, including the development of technology related to scientific pursuits.

Collecting Data in Space Scientific Instruments

Some of the most important technological advances developed by Goddard (and NASA in general) come from the need to innovate with new scientific instruments in order to be able to observe or measure phenomena in space that have never been measured or observed before. Instrument names tend to be known by their initials. In some cases, the mission's name gives an indication of the type of instrument involved. For example, the James Webb Space Telescope is, as its name indicates, a telescope, but it includes a suite of four distinct scientific instruments: Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI); Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam); Near-Infrared Spectrograph (NIRSpec); Fine Guidance Sensor/Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (FGS-NIRISS).[15] Scientists at Goddard work closely with the engineers to develop these instruments.

Typically, a mission consists of a spacecraft with an instrument suite (multiple instruments) on board. In some cases, the scientific requirements dictate the need for multiple spacecraft. For example, the Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (MMS) studies magnetic reconnection, a 3-D process. In order to capture data about this complex 3-D process, a set of four spacecraft fly in a tetrahedral formation. Each of the four spacecraft carries identical instrument suites. MMS is part of a larger program (Solar Terrestrial Probes) that studies the impact of the sun on the solar system.

Goddard's Scientific Collaborations

In many cases, Goddard works with partners (US Government agencies, aerospace industry, university-based research centers, other countries) that are responsible for developing the scientific instruments. In other cases, Goddard develops one or more of the instruments. The individual instruments are then integrated into an instrument suite which is then integrated with the spacecraft. In the case of MMS, for example, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) was responsible for developing the scientific instruments and Goddard provides overall project management, mission systems engineering, the spacecraft, and mission operations.[16]

On the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), six instruments have been developed by a range of partners. One of the instruments, the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA), was developed by Goddard. LOLA measures landing site slopes and lunar surface roughness in order to generate a 3-D map of the moon.[17]

Another mission to be managed by Goddard is MAVEN. MAVEN is the second mission within the Mars Scout Program that is exploring the atmosphere of Mars in support of NASA's broader efforts to go to Mars. MAVEN carries eight instruments to measure characteristics of Mars' atmospheric gases, upper atmosphere, solar wind, and ionosphere. Instrument development partners include the University of Colorado at Boulder, and the University of California, Berkeley. Goddard contributed overall project management as well as two of the instruments, two magnetometers.

Managing Scientific Data

Once a mission is launched and reaches its destination, its instruments start collecting data. The data is transmitted back to earth where it needs to be analyzed and stored for future reference. Goddard manages large collections of scientific data resulting from past and ongoing missions.

The Earth Science Division hosts the Goddard Earth Science Data and Information Services Division (GES DISC).[18] It offers Earth science data, information, and services to research scientists, applications scientists, applications users, and students.

The National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC), created at Goddard in 1966, hosts a permanent archive of space science data, including a large collection of images from space.

Section 102(d) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 calls for "the establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes."[19] Because of this mandate, the Technology Utilization Program was established in 1962 which required technologies to be brought down to Earth and commercialized in order to help the US economy and improve the quality of life.[20]

Documentation of these technologies that were spun off started in 1976 with "Spinoff 1976".[21] Since then, NASA has produced a yearly publication of these "spinoff technologies" through the Innovative Partnerships Program Office.

Goddard Space Flight Center has made significant contributions to the US economy and quality of life with the technologies it has spun off. Here are some examples: Weather balloon technology has helped firefighters with its short-range radios; aluminized Mylar in satellites has made sports equipment more insulated; laser optics systems have transformed the camera industry and life detection missions on other planets help scientists find bacteria in contaminated food.[22]

The Goddard Space Flight Center maintains ties with local area communities through external volunteer and educational programs. Employees are encouraged to take part in mentoring programs and take on speaking roles at area schools. On Center, Goddard hosts regular colloquiums in engineering, leadership and science. These events are open to the general public, but attendees must sign up in advance to procure a visitors pass for access to the Center's main grounds. Passes can be obtained at the security office main gate on Greenbelt Road.

Goddard also hosts several different internship opportunities, including NASA DEVELOP at Goddard Space Flight Center.

Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and her husband Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh visited Goddard Space Flight Center on Tuesday, May 8, 2007. The tour of Goddard was near the end of the queen's visit to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown in Virginia. The queen spoke with crew aboard the International Space Station.[23]

Coordinates: 385949N 765054W / 38.99694N 76.84833W / 38.99694; -76.84833

Link:

Goddard Space Flight Center - Wikipedia

Marshall Space Flight Center – Wikipedia

Coordinates: 343849N 864027W / 34.64688N 86.67416W / 34.64688; -86.67416

The George C. Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), located in Huntsville, Alabama, is the U.S. government's civilian rocketry and spacecraft propulsion research center.[1] The largest NASA center, MSFC's first mission was developing the Saturn launch vehicles for the Apollo moon program. Marshall has been the agency's lead center for Space Shuttle propulsion and its external tank; payloads and related crew training; International Space Station (ISS) design and assembly; and computers, networks, and information management. Located on the Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Alabama, MSFC is named in honor of General of the Army George Marshall.

The center also contains the Huntsville Operations Support Center (HOSC), a facility that supports ISS launch, payload and experiment activities at the Kennedy Space Center. The HOSC also monitors rocket launches from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station when a Marshall Center payload is on board.

After the end of the war with Germany in May 1945, a program was initiated to bring to the United States a number of scientists and engineers who had been at the center of Germany's advanced military technologies. The largest and best-known activity was called Operation Paperclip. In August 1945, 127 missile specialists led by Wernher von Braun signed work contracts with the U.S. Army's Ordnance Corps. Most of them had worked on the V-2 missile development under von Braun at Peenemnde. Von Braun and the other Germans were sent to Fort Bliss, Texas, joining the Army's newly formed Research and Development Division Sub-office (Rocket).

For the next five years, von Braun and the German scientists and engineers were primarily engaged in adapting and improving the V-2 missile for U.S. applications; testing was conducted at nearby White Sands Proving Grounds, New Mexico. Von Braun had long had a great interest in rocketry for space science and exploration. Toward this, he was allowed to use a WAC Corporal rocket as a second stage for a V-2; the combination, called Bumper, reached a record-breaking 250 miles (400km) altitude.[2]

During World War II, the production and storage of ordnance shells was conducted by three arsenals nearby to Huntsville, Alabama. After the war, these were closed, and the three areas were combined to form Redstone Arsenal. In October 1948, the Chief of Ordnance designated Redstone Arsenal as the center of research and development activities in free-flight rockets and related items, and the following June, the Ordnance Rocket Center was opened. A year later, the Secretary of the Army approved the transfer of the rocket research and development activities from Fort Bliss to the new center at Redstone Arsenal. Beginning in April 1950, about 1,000 persons were involved in the transfer, including von Braun's group. At this time, R&D responsibility for guided missiles was added, and studies began on a medium-range guided missile that eventually became the Redstone rocket.

Over the next decade, the missile development on Redstone Arsenal greatly expanded. Many small free-flight and guided rockets were developed, and work on the Redstone rocket got underway. Although this rocket was primarily intended for military purposes, von Braun kept space firmly in his mind, and published a widely read article on this subject.[3] In mid-1952, the Germans who had initially worked under individual contracts were converted to civil service employees, and in 1954-55, most became U.S. citizens. Von Braun was appointed Chief of the Guided Missile Development Division.[4]

In September 1954, von Braun proposed using the Redstone as the main booster of a multi-stage rocket for launching artificial satellites. A year later, a study for Project Orbiter was completed, detailing plans and schedules for a series of scientific satellites. The Army's official role in the U.S. space satellite program was delayed, however, after higher authorities elected to use the Vanguard rocket then being developed by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL).

In February 1956, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA) was established; von Braun was the director of the Development Operations Division. One of the primary programs was a 1,500-mile (2,400km), single-stage missile that was started the previous year; intended for both the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy, this was designated the PGM-19 Jupiter. Guidance component testing for this Jupiter intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) began in March 1956 on a modified Redstone missile dubbed Jupiter A while re-entry vehicle testing began in September 1956 on a Redstone with spin-stabilized upper stages named Jupiter-C. The first Jupiter IRBM flight took place from Cape Canaveral in March 1957 with the first successful flight to full range on 31 May.[5] Jupiter was eventually taken over by the U.S. Air Force. The ABMA developed Jupiter-C was composed of a Redstone rocket first stage and two upper stages for RV tests or three upper stages for Explorer satellite launches. ABMA had originally planned the 20 September 1956 flight as a satellite launch but, by direct intervention of Eisenhower, was limited to the use of 2 upper stages for an RV test flight traveling 3,350 miles (5,390km) and attaining an altitude of 682 miles (1,098km). While the Jupiter C capability was such that it could have placed the fourth stage in orbit, that mission had been assigned to the NRL.[6][7] Later Jupiter-C flights would be used to launch satellites.

The Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the first man-made earth satellite, on October 4, 1957. This was followed on November 3 with the second satellite, Sputnik 2. The United States attempted a satellite launch on December 6, using the NRL's Vanguard rocket, but it barely struggled off the ground, then fell back and exploded. On January 31, 1958, after finally receiving permission to proceed, von Braun and the ABMA space development team used a Jupiter C in a Juno I configuration (addition of a fourth stage) to successfully place Explorer 1, the first American satellite, into orbit around the earth.

Effective at the end of March 1958, the U.S. Army Ordnance Missile Command (AOMC), was established at Redstone Arsenal. This encompassed the ABMA and its newly operational space programs. In August, AOMC and Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA, a Department of Defense organization) jointly initiated a program managed by ABMA to develop a large space booster of approximately 1.5-million-pounds thrust using a cluster of available rocket engines. In early 1959, this vehicle was designated Saturn.

On April 2, President Dwight D. Eisenhower recommended to Congress that a civilian agency be established to direct nonmilitary space activities, and on July 29, the President signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The nucleus for forming NASA was the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), with its 7,500 employees and Ames Research Center (ARC), Langley Research Center (LaRC), and Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory (later LRC, then Glenn RC) becoming the initial operations of NASA.

Despite the existence of an official space agency, the Army continued with certain far-reaching space programs. In June 1959, a secret study on Project Horizon was completed by ABMA, detailing plans for using the Saturn booster in establishing a manned Army outpost on the moon. Project Horizon, however, was rejected, and the Saturn program was transferred to NASA.

The U.S. manned satellite space program, using the Redstone as a booster, was officially named Project Mercury on November 26, 1958. With a future goal of manned flight, monkeys Able and Baker were the first living creatures recovered from outer space on May 28, 1959. They had been carried in the nose cone on a Jupiter missile to an altitude of 300 miles (480km) and a distance of 1,500 miles (2,400km), successfully withstanding 38 times the normal pull of gravity. Their survival during speeds over 10,000 miles per hour was America's first biological step toward putting a man into space.

On October 21, 1959, President Eisenhower approved the transfer of all Army space-related activities to NASA. This was accomplished effective July 1, 1960, when 4,670 civilian employees, about $100 million worth of buildings and equipment, and 1,840 acres (7.4km2) of land transferred from AOMC/ABMA to NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. MSFC officially opened at Redstone Arsenal on this same date, then was dedicated on September 8 by President Eisenhower in person. The Center was named in honor of General of the Army George C. Marshall, Army Chief of Staff during World War II, United States Secretary of State, and Nobel Prize winner for his world-renowned Marshall Plan.

From its initiation, MSFC has been NASA's lead center for the development of rocket propulsion systems and technologies. During the 1960s, the activities were largely devoted to the Apollo Program man's first visit to the Moon. In this, the Saturn Family of launch vehicles were designed and tested at MSFC. Following the highly successful Moon landing, including initial scientific exploration, MSFC had a major role in Post-Apollo activities; this included Skylab, the United States' first space station. With a permanent space station as an objective, the Space Shuttle was developed as a reusable transportation vehicle, and with it came Spacelab and other experimental activities making use of the Shuttle cargo bay. These and other projects are described in a later section. But first, MSFC's present capabilities and projects are addressed.

Marshall Space Flight Center has capabilities and projects supporting NASA's mission in three key areas: lifting from Earth (Space Vehicles), living and working in space (International Space Station), and understanding our world and beyond (Advanced Scientific Research).[8]

MSFC is NASA's designated developer and integrator of launch systems. The state-of-the-art Propulsion Research Laboratory serves as a leading national resource for advanced space propulsion research. Marshall has the engineering capabilities to take space vehicles from initial concept to sustained service. For manufacturing, the world's largest-known welding machine of its type was installed at MSFC in 2008; it is capable of building major, defect-free components for manned-rated space vehicles.

In early March 2011, NASA Headquarters announced that MSFC will lead the efforts on a new heavy-lift rocket that, like the Saturn V of the lunar exploration program of the late 1960s, will carry large, man-rated payloads beyond low-Earth orbit. The Center will have the program office for what is being called the Space Launch System (SLS).[9]

Before it was cancelled by President Barack Obama in early 2010, the Constellation Program had been a major activity in NASA since 2004. In this program, MSFC was responsible for propulsion on the heavy-lift vehicles. These vehicles were designated Ares I and Ares V, and would replace the aging Space Shuttle fleet as well as transport humans to the Moon, Mars, and other deep-space destinations.[10]

Starting in 2006, the MSFC Exploration Launch Projects Office began work on the Ares projects. On October 28, 2009, an Ares I-X test rocket lifted off from the newly modified Launch Complex 39B at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) for a two-minute powered flight; then continued for four additional minutes traveling 150 miles (240km) down range.

MSFC had responsibility for the Space Shuttle's propulsion engines. On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster occurred, with the orbiter disintegrating during reentry and resulting in the death of its seven crew members. Flights of the other Shuttles were put on hold for 29 months. Based on a seven-month investigation, including a ground search that recovered debris from about 38 percent of the Orbiter, together with telemetry data and launch films, indicated that the failure was caused by a piece of insulation that broke off the external tank during launch and damaged the thermal protection on the Orbiter's left wing.

MSFC was responsible for the external tank, but few or no changes to the tank were made; rather, NASA decided that it was inevitable that some insulation might be lost during launch and thus required that an inspection of the orbiter's critical elements be made prior to reentry on future flights.

NASA retired the Space Shuttle in 2011, leaving America dependent upon the Russian Soyuz spacecraft for manned space missions.

The initial plans for the Space Station envisaged a small, low-cost Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) that would provide emergency evacuation capability. The 1986 Challenger disaster led planners to consider a more capable spacecraft. The Orbital Space Plane (OSP) development got underway in 2001, with an early version expected to enter service by 2010. With the initiation of the Constellation program in 2004, the knowledge gained on the OSP was transferred to Johnson Space Center (JSC) for use in the development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle. No operational OSP was ever built.[11]

The International Space Station is a partnership of the United States, Russian, European, Japanese, and Canadian Space Agencies. The station has continuously had human occupants since November 2, 2000. Orbiting 16 times daily at an average altitude of about 250mi (400km), it passes over some 90 percent of the world's surface. It weighs over 800,000 pounds (360,000kg), and a crew of six conducts research and prepares the way for future explorations.

NASA began the plan to build a space station in 1984. The station was named Freedom in 1988, and changed to the International Space Station (ISS) in 1992. The ISS is composed in modules, and the assembly in orbit started with the delivery of Russian module Zarya in November 1998. This was followed in December by the first U.S. module, Unity also called Node 1, built by Boeing in facilities at MSFC.[12]

As the 21st century started, Space Shuttle flights carried up supplies and additional small equipment, including a portion of the solar power array. The two-module embryonic ISS remained unmanned until the next module, Destiny, the U.S. Laboratory, arrived on February 7, 2001; this module was also built by Boeing at MSFC. The three-module station allowed a minimum crew of two astronauts or cosmonauts to be on the ISS permanently. In July, Quest air-lock was added to Unity, providing the capability for extra-vehicular activity (EVA).

Since 1998, 18 major U.S. components on the ISS have been assembled in space. In October 2007, Harmony or Node 2, was attached to Destiny; also managed by MSFC, this gave connection hubs for European and Japanese modules as well as additional living space, allowing the ISS crew to increase to six. The 18th and final major U.S. and Boeing-built element, the Starboard 6 Truss Segment, was delivered to the ISS in February 2009. With this, the full set of solar arrays could be activated, increasing the power available for science projects to 30kW. That marked the completion of the U.S. "core" of the station.

On 5 March 2010, Boeing turned over to NASA the U.S. on-orbit segment of the ISS.[13] It is planned that the International Space Station will be operated at least through the end of 2020. With the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet in 2011, future manned missions to the ISS will depend upon the Russian Soyuz spacecraft for the immediate future.

MSFC is involved in some of the most advanced space research of our time. Scientist/Astronaut researchers aboard the International Space Station are engaged in hundreds of advanced experiments, most of which could not be conducted except for the zero-gravity environment. The deep-space images from the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory are made possible in part by the people and facilities at Marshall. The Center was not only responsible for the design, development, and construction of these telescopes, but it is also now home to the only facility in the world for testing large telescope mirrors in a space-simulated environment. Preliminary work has started on a Hubble successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST); this will be the largest primary mirror ever assembled in space. In the future, the facility will likely be used for another successor, the Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Space Telescope (AT-LAST).

The National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) is a joint research venture between NASA and the seven research universities of the State of Alabama. The primary purpose of NSSTC is to foster collaboration in research between government, academia, and industry. It consists of seven research centers: Advanced Optics, Biotechnology, Global Hydeology & Climate, Information Technology, Material Science, Propulsion, and Space Science. Each center is managed by either MSFC, the host NASA facility, or the University of Alabama in Huntsville, the host university.

The Hubble Space Telescope was launched in April 1990, but gave flawed images. It had been designed at MSFC, but used a primary mirror that had spherical aberration due to incorrect grinding and polishing by the contractor. The defect was found when the telescope was in orbit. The design was such that repairs were possible, and three maintenance missions were flown in Shuttles during the 1990s. Another servicing mission (STS-109) was flown on March 1, 2002. Each mission resulted in considerable improvements, with the images receiving worldwide attention from astronomers as well as the public.

Based on the success of earlier maintenance missions, NASA decided to have a fifth service mission to Hubble; this was STS-125 flown on May 11, 2009. The maintenance and addition of equipment resulted in Hubble performance considerably better than planned at its origin. It is now expected that the Hubble will remain operational until its successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), is available in 2018.[14][15]

The Chandra X-ray Observatory, originating at MSFC, was launched on July 3, 1999, and is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. With an angular resolution of 0.5 arcsecond (2.4 rad), it has a thousand times better resolution than the first orbiting X-ray telescopes. Its highly eliptical orbit allows continuous observations up to 85 percent of its 65-hour orbital period. With its ability to make X-ray images of star clusters, supernova remnants, galactic eruptions, and collisions between clusters of galaxies - in its first decade of operation it has transformed astronomer's view of the high-energy universe.[16]

The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, initially called the Gamma-Ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST), is an international, multi-agency space observatory used to study the cosmos. It was launched June 11, 2008, has a design life of 5 years and a goal of 10 years. The primary instrument is the Large Area Telescope (LAT) that is sensitive in the photon energy range of 8 to greater than 300 GeV. It can view about 20% of the sky at any given moment.[17]

The LAT is complemented by the GLAST Burst Monitor (GBM) which can detect burst of X-rays and gamma rays in the 8-keV to 3-MeV energy range, overlapping with the LAT. The GBM is a collaborative effort between the U.S. National Space Science and Technology Center and the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Germany. MSFC manages the GBM, and Charles A. Meegan of MSFC is the Principal Investigator. Many new discoveries have been made in the initial period of operation. For example, on May 10, 2009, a burst was detected that, by its propagation characteristics, is believed to negate some approaches to a new theory of gravity.[18]

The Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE), with Gerald J. Fishman of MSFC serving as Principal Investigator, is an ongoing examination of the many years of data from gamma-ray bursts, pulsars, and other transient gamma-ray phenomena.[19] The 2011 Shaw Prize, often called "Asia's Nobel Prize," was shared by Fishman and Italian astronomer Enrico Costa for their gamma-ray research.[20]

For 10 years, MSFC has supported activities in the U.S. Laboratory (Destiny) and elsewhere on the International Space Station through the Payload Operations Center (POC). The research activities include experiments on topics ranging from human physiology to physical science. Operating around the clock, scientists, engineers, and flight controllers in the POC link Earth-bound researchers throughout the world with their experiments and astronauts aboard the ISS. As of March2011[update], this has included the coordination of more than 1,100 experiments conducted by 41 space-station crew members involved in over 6,000 hours of science research.

Teams at Marshall manage NASA's programs for exploring the Sun, the Moon, the planets, and other bodies throughout our solar system. These have included Gravity Probe B, an experiment to test two predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity, and Solar-B, an international mission to study the solar magnetic field and origins of the solar wind, a phenomenon that affects radio transmission on the Earth. The MSFC Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program Office manages projects and directs studies on lunar robotic activities across NASA.

MSFC also develops systems for monitoring the Earth's climate and weather patterns. At the Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC), researchers combine data from Earth systems with satellite data to monitor biodiversity conservation and climate change, providing information that improves agriculture, urban planning, and water-resource management.[21]

On November 19, 2010, MSFC entered the new field of microsatellites with the successful launch of FASTSAT (Fast, Affordable, Science and Technology Satellite). Part of a joint DoD/NASA payload, it was launched by a Minotaur IV rocket from the Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska. FASTSAT is a platform carrying multiple small payloads to low-Earth orbit, creating opportunities to conduct low-cost scientific and technology research on an autonomous satellite in space. FASTSAT, weighing just under 400 pounds (180kg), serves as a full scientific laboratory containing all the resources needed to carry out scientific and technology research operations. It was developed at the MSFC in partnership with the Von Braun Center for Science & Innovation and Dynetics, Inc., both of Huntsville, Alabama. Mark Boudreaux is the project manager for MSFC.

There are six experiments on the FASTSAT bus, including NanoSail-D2, which is itself a nanosatellite the first satellite launched from another satellite. It was deployed satisfactorily on January 21, 2011.[22]

In addition to supporting NASA's key missions, the spinoffs from these activities at MSFC have contributed broadly to technologies that improve the Nation and the World. In the last decade alone, Marshall generated more than 60 technologies featured as NASA spinoffs. MSFC research has benefited firefighters, farmers, plumbers, healthcare providers, soldiers, teachers, pilots, divers, welders, architects, photographers, city planners, disaster relief workers, criminal investigators, and even video-gamers and golfers.[23]

The Space Shuttle is likely the most complex spacecraft ever built. Although MSFC was not responsible for developing the centerpiece the Orbiter Vehicle (OV) it was responsible for all of the rocket propulsion elements: the OV's three main engines, the External Tank (ET), and the Solid-Rocket Boosters (SRBs). MSFC was also responsible for Spacelab, the research facility carried in the Shuttle's cargo bay on certain flights. From the start of the program in 1972, the management and development of Space Shuttle propulsion was a major activity at MSFC. Alex A. McCool, Jr. was manager of MSFC's Space Shuttle Projects Office.

Throughout 1980, engineers at MSFC participated in tests related to plans to launch the first Space Shuttle. During these early tests and prior to each later Shuttle launch, personnel in the Huntsville Operations Support Center monitored consoles to evaluate and help solve any problems at the Florida launch that might involve Shuttle propulsion

On April 12, 1981, Columbia made the first orbital test flight of a full Space Shuttle with two astronauts. This was designated STS-1 (Space Transportation System-1), and verified the combined performance of the entire system. This was followed by STS-2 on November 12, also using Columbia, primarily to demonstrate safe re-launch of a Shuttle. During 1982, two more test flights (STS-3 & STS-4) were made. STS-5, launched November 11, was the first operational mission; carrying four astronauts, two commercial satellite were deployed. In all three of these flights, on-board experiments were carried and conducted on pallets in the Shuttle's cargo bay.[24]

Space Shuttle Challenger was launched on mission STS-51-L on January 28, 1986. (The sequential numbering changed after 1983, but otherwise this would have been STS-25). One-minute, 13-seconds into flight, the entire Challenger was enveloped in a fireball and broke into several large segments, killing the seven astronauts. Subsequent analysis of the high-speed tracking films and telemetry signals indicated that a leak occurred in a joint on one of the solid rocket boosters (SRBs), the escaping flame impinged on the surface of the external tank (ET); there followed a complex series of very rapid structural failures, and in milliseconds the hydrogen and oxygen streaming from the ruptured tank exploded.

The basic cause of the disaster was determined to be an O-ring failure in the right SRB; cold weather was a contributing factor. The redesign effort, directed by MSFC, involved an extensive test program to verify that the SRBs were safe. There were no Space Shuttle missions in the remainder of 1986 or in 1987. Flights resumed in September 1988, with sequential numbering starting with STS-26.

As a reusable space-launch vehicle, the space shuttles carried a wide variety of payloads from scientific research equipment to highly classified military satellites. The flights were assigned a Space Transportation System (STS) number, in general sequenced by the planned launch date. The Wikipedia list of space shuttle missions shows all flights, their missions, and other information.

The first orbital flight (STS-1) by Shuttle Columbia on April 12, 1981, did not have a payload, but all flights that followed generally had multiple payloads. Through 1989, there were 32 flights; this includes the one on January 28, 1986, when Challenger was lost, and the delay until September 29, 1988, when flights resumed. During the 1990s, there were 58 flights, giving a total of 95 successful flights through 1999.[25]

For the Magellan planetary spacecraft, MSFC managed the adaptation of the Inertial Upper Stage. This solid-rocket was used in May 1989 to propel the spacecraft from Orbiter Atlantis on a 15-month loop around the Sun and eventually into orbit around Venus for four years of radar surface-mapping.

Many Shuttle flights carried equipment for performing on-board research. Such equipment was accommodated in two forms: on pallets or other arrangements in the Shuttle's cargo bay (most often in addition to hardware for the primary mission), or within a reusable laboratory called Skylab. All such experimental payloads were under the general responsibility of MSFC.

Pallet experiments covered a very wide spread of types and complexity, but many of them were in fluid physics, materials science, biotechnology, combustion science, and commercial space processing. For some missions, an aluminum bridge fitting across the cargo bay was used. This could carry 12 standard canisters holding isolated experiments, particularly those under the Getaway Special (GAS) program. GAS flights were made available at low cost to colleges and universities, American industries, individuals, foreign governments, and others.

On some flights, a variety of pallet experiments constituted the full payload; examples of these include the following:

In addition to the pallet experiments, many other experiments were flown and performed using Spacelab. This was a reusable laboratory consisting of multiple components, including a pressurized module, an unpressurized carrier, and other related hardware. Under a program managed by MSFC, ten Europeans nations jointly designed, built, and financed the first Spacelab through the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO. In addition, Japan funded a Spacelab for STS-47, a dedicated mission.[26]

Over a 15-year period, Spacelab components flew on 22 shuttle missions, the last in April 1998. Examples of Spacelab missions follow:

In early 1990, MSFC's new Spacelab Mission Operations Control Center took over the responsibility for controlling all Spacelab missions. This replaced the Payload Operations Control Center formerly situated at the JSC from which previous Spacelab missions were operated.[27]

The advent of the Space Shuttle made possible several major space programs in which MSFC had significant responsibilities. These were the International Space Station, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory. The latter three are part of NASA's series of Great Observatories; this series also includes the Spitzer Space Telescope, but this was not launched by a Space Shuttle and MSFC had no significant role in its development.

A manned space station had long been in the plans of visionaries. Wernhar von Braun, in his widely read Collier's Magazine 1953 article, envisioned this to be a huge wheel, rotating to produce gravity-like forces on the occupants.[28] In Project Horizon, prepared by the U.S. Army in 1959, a space station would be built by assembling spent booster rockets. Following this same basic concept, in 1973 MSFC used a modified stage of Saturn V to put into orbit Skylab, but this was preceded by the Soviet Union's Salyut in 1971, then followed by their Mir in 1986. Even during Skylab, MSFC began plans for a much more complete space station. President Ronald Reagan announced plans to build Space Station Freedom in 1984. Luther B. Powell was MSFC's space station program manager.

By the late 1990s, planning for four different stations were underway: the American Freedom, the Soviet/Russian Mir-2, the European Columbus, and the Japanese Kib. In June 1992, with the Cold War over, American President George H. W. Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin agreed to cooperate on space exploration. Then in September 1993, American Vice-President Al Gore, Jr., and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin announced plans for a new space station. In November, plans for Freedom, Mir-2, and the European and Japanese modules were incorporated into a single International Space Station. Boeing began as NASA's prime contractor for U.S. hardware in January 1995.

The ISS is composed of a number of modules, sharing primary power from large arrays of solar power cells. The first module, Zarya from Russia, was delivered to orbit by a Proton rocket on November 20, 1998. On December 4, the first Anmerican component, Unity, a connecting module, was carried up by Space Shuttle Endeavour on flight STS-88; it was then joined with Zarya to form an embrionic ISS. Unity was built by Boeing in MSFC facilities. Additional building supplies were carried to the ISS in May 1999, aboard STS-96.

The ISS continued to be assembled throughout the next decade, and has been continuously occupied since February 7, 2001. In March 2010, Boeing completed its contract and officially turned over to NASA the U.S. on-orbit segment of the ISS.

Shortly after NASA was formed, the Orbiting Solar Observatory was launched, and was followed by the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory (OAO) that carried out ultraviolet observations of stars between 1968 and 1972. These showed the value of space-based astronomy, and led to the planning of the Large Space Telescope (LST) that would be launched and maintained from the forthcoming space shuttle. Budget limitations almost killed the LST, but the astronomy community especially Lyman Spitzer and the National Science Foundation pressed for a major program in this area. Congress finally funded LST in 1978, with an intended launch date of 1983.

MSFC was given responsibility for the design, development, and construction of the telescope, while Goddard Space Flight Center (GFC) was to control the scientific instrument and the ground-control center. As the Project Scientist, MSFC brought on board C. Robert ODell, then chairman of the Astronomy Department at the University of Chicago. Several different people, at various times, served as the project manager. The telescope assembly was designed as a Cassegrain reflector with hyperbolic mirror polished to be diffraction limited; the primary mirror had a diameter of 2.4m (94in). The mirrors were developed by the optics firm, Perkin-Elmer. MSFC did not have a facility to check the end-to-end performance of the mirror assembly, so the telescope could not be totally checked until launched and placed in service.[29]

The LST was named the Hubble Space Telescope in 1983, the original launch date. There were many problems, delays, and cost increases in the program, and the Challenger disaster delayed the availability of the launch vehicle. Finally, on April 24, 1990, on Mission STS-31, Shuttle Discovery launched the Hubble telescope successfully into its planned orbit. Almost immediately it was realized that the optical performance was not as expected; analysis of the flawed images showed that the primary mirror had been ground to the wrong shape, resulting in spherical aberration.

Fortunately, the Hubble telescope had been designed to allow in-space maintenance, and in December 1993, mission STS-61 carried astronauts to the Hubble to make corrections and change some components. A second repair mission, STS-82, was made in February 1997, and a third, STS-103, in December 1999. For these repair missions, the astronauts practiced the work in MSFC's Neutral Buoyancy Facility, simulating the weightless environment of space.

Through the 1990s, the Hubble did provide astronomy images that had never before been seen. During the next decade, two additional repair missions were made (March 2002 and in May 2009), eventually bringing the telescope to even better that its initially intended performance.

Even before HEAO-2 (the Einstein Observatory) was launched in 1978, MSFC began preliminary studies for a larger X-ray telescope. To support this effort, in 1976 an X-Ray Test Facility, the only one of its size, was constructed at Marshall for verification testing and calibration of X-ray mirrors, telescope systems, and instruments. With the success of HEAO-2, MSFC was given responsibility for the design, development, and construction of what was then known as the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF). The Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) partners with MSFC, providing the science and operational management.

Work on the AXAF continued through the 1980s. A major review was held in 1992, resulting in many changes; four of the twelve planned mirrors were eliminated, as were two of the six scientific instruments. The planned circular orbit was changed to an elliptical one, reaching one-third of the way to the Moon at its farthest point; this eliminated the possibility of improvement or repair using the Space Shuttle, but it placed the spacecraft above the Earth's radiation belts for most of its orbit.

AXAF was renamed Chandra X-ray Observatory in 1998. It was launched July 23, 1999, by the Shuttle Columbia (STS-93). An Inertial Upper Stage booster adapted by MSFC was used to transport Chandra to its high orbit Weighing about 22,700kg (50,000lb), this was the heaviest payload ever launched by a Shuttle. Operationally managed by the SAO, Chandra has been returning excellent data since being activated. It initially had an expected life of five years, but this has now been extended to 15 years or longer.[30]

The Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) is another of NASA's Great Observatories; it was launched April 5, 1991, on Shuttle flight STS-37. At 37,000 pounds (17,000kg), it was the heaviest astrophysical payload ever flown at that time. CGRO was 14 years in development by NASA; TRW was the builder. Gamma radiation (rays) is the highest energy-level of electromagnetic radiation, having energies above 100 keV and thus frequencies above 10 exahertz (1019 Hz). This is produced by sub-atomic particle interactions, including those in certain astrophysical processes. The continuous flow of cosmic rays bombarding space objects, such as the Moon, generate this radiation Gamma rays also result in bursts from nuclear reactions. The CGRO was designed to image continuous radiation and to detect bursts.

MSFC was responsible for the Burst and Transient Source Experiment, (BATSE). This triggered on sudden changes in gamma count-rates lasting 0.1 to 100 s; it was also capable of detecting less impulsive sources by measuring their modulation using the Earth occultation technique. In nine years of operation, BATSE triggered about 8000 events, of which some 2700 were strong bursts that were analyzed to have come from distant galaxies.

Unlike the Hubble Space Telescope, the CGRO was not designed for on-orbit repair and refurbishment. Thus, after one of its gyroscopes failed, NASA decided that a controlled crash was preferable to letting the craft come down on its own at random. On June 4, 2000, it was intentionally de-orbited, with the debris that did not burn up falling harmlessly into the Pacific Ocean. At MSFC, Gerald J. Fishman is the principal investigator of a project to continue examination of data from BATSE and other gamma-ray projects. The 2011 Shaw Prize was shared by Fishman and Italian Enrico Costa for their gamma-ray research.

Shortly before activating its new Field Center in July 1960, NASA described the MSFC as the only self-contained organization in the nation that was capable of conducting the development of a space vehicle from the conception of the idea, through production of hardware, testing, and launching operations.

Initially, engineers from Huntsville traveled to Florida to conduct launch activities at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The first NASA launch facility there (Launch Complex 39) was designed and operated by MSFC, then in on July 1, 1962, the overall site achieving equal status with other NASA centers and was named the Launch Operations Center, later renamed the Kennedy Space Center (KSC).

Another major NASA facility, the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) located near Houston, Texas, was officially opened in September 1963. Designated the primary center for U.S. space missions and systems involving astronauts, it coordinates and monitors crewed missions through the Mission Control Center. MSC was renamed the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in February 1973. Through the years, there have been a number of turf battles between MSFC and MSC/JSC concerning mission responsibilities.

When the Marshall Space Flight Center began official operations in July 1960, Wernher von Braun was the Director and Eberhard Rees was his Deputy for Research and Development. The administrative activities in MSFC were led by persons with backgrounds in traditional U.S. Government functions, but all of the technical heads were individuals who had assisted von Braun in his success at ABMA. The initial technical activities and leaders at MSFC were as follows:[31]

With the exception of Koelle, all of the technical leaders had come to the United States under Operation Paperclip after working together at Peenemnde. Von Braun knew well the capabilities of these individuals and had great confidence in them. This confidence was shown to be appropriate; in the following decade of developing hardware and technical operations that established new levels of complexity, there was never a single failure of their designs during manned flight.

The initial projects at MSFC were primarily continuations of work initiated earlier at ABMA. Of immediate importance was the final preparation of a Redstone rocket that, under Project Mercury would lift a space capsule carrying the first American into space. Originally scheduled to take place in October 1960, this was postponed several time and on May 5, 1961, astronaut Alan Shepard made America's first sub-orbital spaceflight. The delays led to a circumstance similar to that of the first satellite; on April 12, 1961, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin had become the first person to orbit the Earth.

By 1965, MSFC had about 7,500 government employees. In addition, most of the prime contractors for launch vehicles and related major items (including North American Aviation, Chrysler, Boeing, Douglas Aircraft, Rocketdyne, and IBM) collectively had approximately a similar number of employees working in MSFC facilities.

Several support contracting firms were also involved in the programs; the largest of these was Brown Engineering Company (BECO, later Teledyne Brown Engineering), the first high-technology firm in Huntsville and by this time having some 3,500 employees. In the Saturn-Apollo activities, BECO/TBE provided about 20-million man-hours of support. Milton K. Cummings was the BECO president, Joseph C. Moquin the executive vice president, William A. Girdini led the engineering design and test work, and Raymond C. Watson, Jr., directed the research and advanced systems activities. Cummings Research Park, the second largest park of this type in the Nation, was named for Cummings in 1973.

On May 25, 1961, just 20 days after Shepard's flight, President John F. Kennedy committed the Nation to "achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth".[32] In what would be called the Apollo Program, the primary mission of MSFC was developing the heavy-lift rockets the Saturn family. This required the development and equalization of three new liquid-fueled rocket engines, the J-2, the F-1, and the H-1 (rocket engine); in addition, an existing engine, the RL10, was improved for use on Saturns. Leland F. Belew managed the Engine Development Office.[33] The F-1 engine was, and still is the most powerful single-nozzle liquid-fueled rocket engine ever used in service; each produced 1.5-million-pounds thrust. Originally started by the U.S. Air Force, responsibility for the development was taken over by ABMA in 1959, and the first test firings at MSFC were in December 1963.

The original vehicle, designated Saturn I, consisted of two propulsion stages and an instrument unit; it was first tested in flight on October 27, 1961. The first stage (S-I) had a cluster of eight H-1 engines, giving approximately 1.5-million-pounds thrust total. The four outboard engines were gimbaled to allow vehicle steering. The second stage (SIV) had six gimbaled LR10A-3 engines, producing a combined 90-thousand-pounds thrust. Ten Saturn Is were used in flight-testing of Apollo boilerplate units. Five of the test flights also carried important auxiliary scientific experiments.

The Saturn IB (alternatively known as the Uprated Saturn I) also had two propulsion stages and an instrument unit. The first stage (S-IB) also had eight H-1 engines with four gimballed, but the stage had eight fixed fins of equal size fitted to the sides to provide aerodynamic stability. The second stage (S-IVB) had a single J-2 engine that gave a more powerful 230-thousand-pounds thrust. The J-2 was gimbaled and could also be restarted during flight. The vehicle was first flight-tested on February 26, 1966. Fourteen Saturn 1Bs (or partial vehicles) were built, with five used in unmanned testing and five others used in manned missions, the last on July 15, 1975.

The Saturn V was the pinnacle of developments at MSFC. This was an expendable, man-rated heavy-lift vehicle that was the most vital element in the Apollo Program. Designed under the direction of Arthur Rudolph, the Saturn V holds the record as the largest and most powerful launch vehicle ever brought to operational status from a combined height, weight, and payload standpoint.

The Saturn V consisted of three propulsion stages and an instrument unit. The first stage (S-IC), had five F-1 engines, giving a combined total of 7.5-million-pounds thrust. These engines were arranged in a cross pattern, with the center engine fixed and the outer four gimballed. The second stage (S-II), had five J-2 engines with the same arrangement as the F-1s and giving a total of 1.0-million-pounds thrust. The third stage (S-IVB) had a single gimballed J-2 engine with 200-thousand-pounds thrust. As previously noted, the J-2 engine could be restarted in flight. The basic configuration for this heavy-lift vehicle was selected in early 1963, and the name Saturn V was applied at that time (configurations that might have led to Saturn II, III, and IV were discarded).

The Apollo Spacecraft was atop the launch vehicle, and was composed of the Lunar Module (LM) and the Command/Service Module (CSM) inside the Spacecraft Lunar Module Adapter, with the Launch Escape System at the very top. The Apollo Spacecraft and its components were developed by other NASA centers, but were flight-tested on Saturn I and IB vehicles from MSFC.

While the three propulsion stages were the "muscle" of the Saturn V, the Instrument Unit (IU) was the "brains." The IU was on a 260-inch (6.6-m) diameter, 36-inch (91-cm) high, ring that was held between the third propulsion stage and the LM. It contained the basic guidance system components a stable platform, accelerometers, a digital computer, and control electronics as well as radar, telemetry, and other units. Basically the same IU configuration was used on the Saturn I and IB. With IBM as the prime contractor, the IU was the only full Saturn component manufactured in Huntsville.

The first Saturn V test flight was made on November 9, 1967. On July 16, 1969, as its crowning achievement in the Apollo space program, a Saturn V vehicle lifted the Apollo 11 spacecraft and three astronauts on their journey to the Moon. Other Apollo launches continued through December 6, 1972. The last Saturn V flight was on May 14, 1973, in the Skylab Program (described later). A total of 15 Saturn Vs were built; 13 functioned flawlessly, and the other two (intended as backup) remain unused.

Wernher von Braun believed that the personnel designing the space vehicles should have direct, hands-on participation in the building and testing of the hardware. For this, MSFC had facilities comparable with the best to be found in private industries. Included were precision machine shops, giant metal-forming and welding machines, and all types of inspection equipment. For every type of Saturn vehicle, one or more prototypes were fabricated in MSFC shops. Large, special-purpose computers were used in the checkout procedures.

Static test towers had been constructed at ABMA for the Redstone and Jupiter rockets. In 1961, the Jupiter stand was modified to test Saturn 1 and 1B stages. A number of other test stands followed, the largest being the Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand completed in 1964. At 475 feet (145m) in height, the entire Saturn V could be accommodated. Also completed in 1964, the S1C Static Test Stand was for live firing of the five F-1 engines of the first stage. Delivering a total of 7.5-million-pounds thrust, the tests produced earthquake-like rumbles throughout the Huntsville area and could be heard as far as 100 miles (160km) away.[34]

As the Saturn activities progressed, external facilities were needed. In 1961, The Michoud Rocket Factory near New Orleans, Louisiana, was selected as the Saturn production site. A 13,500 acres (55km2) isolated area in Hancock County, Mississippi was selected to conduct Saturn tests. Known as the Mississippi Test Facility (later renamed the John C. Stennis Space Center), this was primarily to test the vehicles built at the rocket factory.

On January 5, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon announced plans to develop the Space Shuttle, a reusable Space Transportation System (STS) for routine access to space. The Shuttle was composed of the Orbiter Vehicle (OV) containing the crew and payload, two Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), and the External Tank (ET) that carried liquid fuel for the OV's main engines. MSFC was responsible for the SRBs, the OV's three main engines, and the ET. The Center also received responsibility for Spacelab, a versatile laboratory that would be carried on some flights within the Shuttle's cargo bay. Other assignments included the adaptation of the Inertial Upper Stage Booster, a two-stage rocket that would lift Shuttle payloads into higher orbits or interplanetary voyages.

The first test firing of an OV main engine was in 1975. Two years later, the first firing of a SRB took place and tests on the ET began at MSFC. The first Enterprise OV flight, attached to a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA an extensively modified Boeing 747), was in February 1977; this as followed by a free landings in August and October. In March 1978, the Enterprise OV was flown atop a SCA to MSFC. Mated to an ET, the partial Space Shuttle was hoisted onto the modified Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand where it was subjected to a full range of vibrations comparable to those in a launch. The second space shuttle, Columbia, was completed and placed at the KSC for checking and launch preparation. On April 12, 1981, the Columbia made the first orbital test flight.

From the start, MSFC has had strong research projects in science and engineering. Two of the early activities, Highwater and Pegasus, were performed on a non-interference basis while testing the Saturn I vehicle.

In Project Highwater, the dummy second stage was filled with 23,000 US gallons (87m3) of water as ballast, and, after burnout of the first stage, explosive charges released the water into the upper atmosphere. The project answered questions about the diffusion of liquid propellants in the event that a rocket was destroyed at high altitude. Highwater experiments were carried out in April and November,1962.

Under the Pegasus Satellite Program, the second stage was instrumented to study the frequency and penetration depth of micrometeoroids. Two large panels were folded into the empty stage and, when in orbit, unfolded to present 2,300-square-feet (210-m2) of instrumented surface. Three Pegasus satellites were launched during 1965, and stayed in orbit from 3 to 13 years.

The overall Apollo Program was the largest scientific and engineering research activity in history. The actual landing on the Moon led to investigations that could have only been conducted on location. There were six Apollo missions that landed on the Moon: Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Apollo 13 had been intended as a landing, but only circled the Moon and returned to Earth after an oxygen tank ruptured and crippled power in the CSM.

Except for Apollo 11, all of the missions carried an Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package (ALSEP), composed of equipment for seven scientific experiments plus a central control station (they were controlled from the Earth) with a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG). Scientists from MSFC were among the co-investigators.

See the rest here:

Marshall Space Flight Center - Wikipedia

Space Shuttle – Wikipedia

Space ShuttleFunctionCrewed orbital launch and reentryManufacturerUnited Space AllianceThiokol/Alliant Techsystems (SRBs)Lockheed Martin/Martin Marietta (ET)Boeing/Rockwell (orbiter)Country of originUnited StatesProject costUS$ 210 billion (2010)[1][2][3]Cost per launchUS$ 450 million (2011)[4] to 1.5 billion (2011)[2][3][5][6]SizeHeight56.1 m (184.2 ft)Diameter8.7 m (28.5 ft)Mass2,030 t (4,470,000 lb)Stages2CapacityPayload to LEO27,500kg (60,600lb)Payload to ISS16,050kg (35,380lb)Payload to GTO3,810kg (8,400lb)Payload to Polar orbit12,700kg (28,000lb)Payload to Earth return14,400kg (31,700lb)[7]Launch historyStatusRetiredLaunch sitesLC-39, Kennedy Space CenterSLC-6, Vandenberg AFB (unused)Total launches135Successes134 launches and 133 landingsFailures2Challenger (launch failure, 7 fatalities),Columbia (re-entry failure, 7 fatalities)First flightApril 12, 1981Last flightJuly 21, 2011Notable payloadsTracking and Data Relay SatellitesSpacelabHubble Space TelescopeGalileo, Magellan, UlyssesCompton Gamma Ray ObservatoryMir Docking ModuleChandra X-ray ObservatoryISS componentsBoosters - Solid Rocket BoostersNo. boosters2[8]Engines2 solidThrust12,500kN (2,800,000lbf) each, sea level liftoffSpecific impulse269 seconds (2.64km/s)Burn time124 sFuelSolid (Ammonium perchlorate composite propellant)First stage - Orbiter plus External TankEngines3 SSMEs located on OrbiterThrust5,250kN (1,180,000lbf) total, sea level liftoff [9]Specific impulse455 seconds (4.46km/s)Burn time480 sFuelLOX/LH2

The Space Shuttle was a partially reusable low Earth orbital spacecraft system operated by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as part of the Space Shuttle program. Its official program name was Space Transportation System (STS), taken from a 1969 plan for a system of reusable spacecraft of which it was the only item funded for development.[10] The first of four orbital test flights occurred in 1981, leading to operational flights beginning in 1982. In addition to the prototype whose completion was cancelled, five complete Shuttle systems were built and used on a total of 135 missions from 1981 to 2011, launched from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. Operational missions launched numerous satellites, interplanetary probes, and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST); conducted science experiments in orbit; and participated in construction and servicing of the International Space Station. The Shuttle fleet's total mission time was 1322 days, 19 hours, 21 minutes and 23 seconds.[11]

Shuttle components included the Orbiter Vehicle (OV) with three clustered Rocketdyne RS-25 main engines, a pair of recoverable solid rocket boosters (SRBs), and the expendable external tank (ET) containing liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The Space Shuttle was launched vertically, like a conventional rocket, with the two SRBs operating in parallel with the OV's three main engines, which were fueled from the ET. The SRBs were jettisoned before the vehicle reached orbit, and the ET was jettisoned just before orbit insertion, which used the orbiter's two Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines. At the conclusion of the mission, the orbiter fired its OMS to de-orbit and re-enter the atmosphere. The orbiter then glided as a spaceplane to a runway landing, usually to the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center, Florida or Rogers Dry Lake in Edwards Air Force Base, California. After landing at Edwards, the orbiter was flown back to the KSC on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, a specially modified version of the Boeing 747.

The first orbiter, Enterprise, was built in 1976, used in Approach and Landing Tests and had no orbital capability. Four fully operational orbiters were initially built: Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis. Of these, two were lost in mission accidents: Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003, with a total of fourteen astronauts killed. A fifth operational (and sixth in total) orbiter, Endeavour, was built in 1991 to replace Challenger. The Space Shuttle was retired from service upon the conclusion of Atlantis's final flight on July 21, 2011. The U.S. has since relied on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to transport supplies and astronauts to the International Space Station.

The Space Shuttle was a partially reusable[12] human spaceflight vehicle capable of reaching low Earth orbit, commissioned and operated by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) from 1981 to 2011. It resulted from shuttle design studies conducted by NASA and the US Air Force in the 1960s and was first proposed for development as part of an ambitious second-generation Space Transportation System (STS) of space vehicles to follow the Apollo program in a September 1969 report of a Space Task Group headed by Vice President Spiro Agnew to President Richard Nixon. Nixon's post-Apollo NASA budgeting withdrew support of all system components except the Shuttle, to which NASA applied the STS name.[10]

The vehicle consisted of a spaceplane for orbit and re-entry, fueled from expendable liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks, with reusable strap-on solid booster rockets. The first of four orbital test flights occurred in 1981, leading to operational flights beginning in 1982, all launched from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The system was retired from service in 2011 after 135 missions,[13] with Atlantis making the final launch of the three-decade Shuttle program on July 8, 2011.[14] The program ended after Atlantis landed at the Kennedy Space Center on July 21, 2011. Major missions included launching numerous satellites and interplanetary probes,[15] conducting space science experiments, and servicing and construction of space stations. The first orbiter vehicle, named Enterprise, was used in the initial Approach and Landing Tests phase but installation of engines, heat shielding, and other equipment necessary for orbital flight was cancelled.[16] A total of five operational orbiters were built, and of these, two were destroyed in accidents.

It was used for orbital space missions by NASA, the US Department of Defense, the European Space Agency, Japan, and Germany.[17][18] The United States funded Shuttle development and operations except for the Spacelab modules used on D1 and D2sponsored by Germany.[17][19][20][21][22] SL-J was partially funded by Japan.[18]

At launch, it consisted of the "stack", including the dark orange external tank (ET) (for the first two launches the tank was painted white);[23][24] two white, slender solid rocket boosters (SRBs); and the Orbiter Vehicle, which contained the crew and payload. Some payloads were launched into higher orbits with either of two different upper stages developed for the STS (single-stage Payload Assist Module or two-stage Inertial Upper Stage). The Space Shuttle was stacked in the Vehicle Assembly Building, and the stack mounted on a mobile launch platform held down by four frangible nuts[25] on each SRB, which were detonated at launch.[26]

The Shuttle stack launched vertically like a conventional rocket. It lifted off under the power of its two SRBs and three main engines, which were fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen from the ET. The Space Shuttle had a two-stage ascent. The SRBs provided additional thrust during liftoff and first-stage flight. About two minutes after liftoff, frangible nuts were fired, releasing the SRBs, which then parachuted into the ocean, to be retrieved by NASA recovery ships for refurbishment and reuse. The orbiter and ET continued to ascend on an increasingly horizontal flight path under power from its main engines. Upon reaching 17,500mph (7.8km/s), necessary for low Earth orbit, the main engines were shut down. The ET, attached by two frangible nuts[27] was then jettisoned to burn up in the atmosphere.[28] After jettisoning the external tank, the orbital maneuvering system (OMS) engines were used to adjust the orbit. The orbiter carried astronauts and payloads such as satellites or space station parts into low Earth orbit, the Earth's upper atmosphere or thermosphere.[29] Usually, five to seven crew members rode in the orbiter. Two crew members, the commander and pilot, were sufficient for a minimal flight, as in the first four "test" flights, STS-1 through STS-4. The typical payload capacity was about 50,045 pounds (22,700kg) but could be increased depending on the choice of launch configuration. The orbiter carried its payload in a large cargo bay with doors that opened along the length of its top, a feature which made the Space Shuttle unique among spacecraft. This feature made possible the deployment of large satellites such as the Hubble Space Telescope and also the capture and return of large payloads back to Earth.

When the orbiter's space mission was complete, it fired its OMS thrusters to drop out of orbit and re-enter the lower atmosphere.[29] During descent, the orbiter passed through different layers of the atmosphere and decelerated from hypersonic speed primarily by aerobraking. In the lower atmosphere and landing phase, it was more like a glider but with reaction control system (RCS) thrusters and fly-by-wire-controlled hydraulically actuated flight surfaces controlling its descent. It landed on a long runway as a conventional aircraft. The aerodynamic shape was a compromise between the demands of radically different speeds and air pressures during re-entry, hypersonic flight, and subsonic atmospheric flight. As a result, the orbiter had a relatively high sink rate at low altitudes, and it transitioned during re-entry from using RCS thrusters at very high altitudes to flight surfaces in the lower atmosphere.

The formal design of what became the Space Shuttle began with the "Phase A" contract design studies issued in the late 1960s. Conceptualization had begun two decades earlier, before the Apollo program of the 1960s. One of the places the concept of a spacecraft returning from space to a horizontal landing originated was within NACA, in 1954, in the form of an aeronautics research experiment later named the X-15. The NACA proposal was submitted by Walter Dornberger.

In 1958, the X-15 concept further developed into a proposal to launch an X-15 into space, and another X-series spaceplane proposal, named X-20 Dyna-Soar, as well as variety of aerospace plane concepts and studies. Neil Armstrong was selected to pilot both the X-15 and the X-20. Though the X-20 was not built, another spaceplane similar to the X-20 was built several years later and delivered to NASA in January 1966 called the HL-10 ("HL" indicated "horizontal landing").

In the mid-1960s, the US Air Force conducted classified studies on next-generation space transportation systems and concluded that semi-reusable designs were the cheapest choice. It proposed a development program with an immediate start on a "ClassI" vehicle with expendable boosters, followed by slower development of a "ClassII" semi-reusable design and possible "ClassIII" fully reusable design later. In 1967, George Mueller held a one-day symposium at NASA headquarters to study the options. Eighty people attended and presented a wide variety of designs, including earlier US Air Force designs such as the X-20 Dyna-Soar.

In 1968, NASA officially began work on what was then known as the Integrated Launch and Re-entry Vehicle (ILRV). At the same time, NASA held a separate Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) competition. NASA offices in Houston and Huntsville jointly issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for ILRV studies to design a spacecraft that could deliver a payload to orbit but also re-enter the atmosphere and fly back to Earth. For example, one of the responses was for a two-stage design, featuring a large booster and a small orbiter, called the DC-3, one of several Phase A Shuttle designs. After the aforementioned "Phase A" studies, B, C, and D phases progressively evaluated in-depth designs up to 1972. In the final design, the bottom stage consisted of recoverable solid rocket boosters, and the top stage used an expendable external tank.[30]

In 1969, President Richard Nixon decided to support proceeding with Space Shuttle development. A series of development programs and analysis refined the basic design, prior to full development and testing. In August 1973, the X-24B proved that an unpowered spaceplane could re-enter Earth's atmosphere for a horizontal landing.

Across the Atlantic, European ministers met in Belgium in 1973 to authorize Western Europe's manned orbital project and its main contribution to Space Shuttlethe Spacelab program.[31] Spacelab would provide a multidisciplinary orbital space laboratory and additional space equipment for the Shuttle.[31]

The Space Shuttle was the first operational orbital spacecraft designed for reuse. It carried different payloads to low Earth orbit, provided crew rotation and supplies for the International Space Station (ISS), and performed satellite servicing and repair. The orbiter could also recover satellites and other payloads from orbit and return them to Earth. Each Shuttle was designed for a projected lifespan of 100 launches or ten years of operational life, although this was later extended. The person in charge of designing the STS was Maxime Faget, who had also overseen the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft designs. The crucial factor in the size and shape of the Shuttle orbiter was the requirement that it be able to accommodate the largest planned commercial and military satellites, and have over 1,000 mile cross-range recovery range to meet the requirement for classified USAF missions for a once-around abort from a launch to a polar orbit. The militarily specified 1,085nmi (2,009km; 1,249mi) cross range requirement was one of the primary reasons for the Shuttle's large wings, compared to modern commercial designs with very minimal control surfaces and glide capability. Factors involved in opting for solid rockets and an expendable fuel tank included the desire of the Pentagon to obtain a high-capacity payload vehicle for satellite deployment, and the desire of the Nixon administration to reduce the costs of space exploration by developing a spacecraft with reusable components.

Each Space Shuttle was a reusable launch system composed of three main assemblies: the reusable OV, the expendable ET, and the two reusable SRBs.[32] Only the OV entered orbit shortly after the tank and boosters are jettisoned. The vehicle was launched vertically like a conventional rocket, and the orbiter glided to a horizontal landing like an airplane, after which it was refurbished for reuse. The SRBs parachuted to splashdown in the ocean where they were towed back to shore and refurbished for later Shuttle missions.

Five operational OVs were built: Columbia (OV-102), Challenger (OV-099), Discovery (OV-103), Atlantis (OV-104), and Endeavour (OV-105). A mock-up, Inspiration, currently stands at the entrance to the Astronaut Hall of Fame. An additional craft, Enterprise (OV-101), was built for atmospheric testing gliding and landing; it was originally intended to be outfitted for orbital operations after the test program, but it was found more economical to upgrade the structural test article STA-099 into orbiter Challenger (OV-099). Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds after launch in 1986, and Endeavour was built as a replacement from structural spare components. Building Endeavour cost about US$1.7billion. Columbia broke apart over Texas during re-entry in 2003. A Space Shuttle launch cost around $450million.[33]

Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has estimated that the Space Shuttle program cost about US$170billion (2008 dollars) through early 2008; the average cost per flight was about US$1.5billion.[34] Two missions were paid for by Germany, Spacelab D1 and D2 (D for Deutschland) with a payload control center in Oberpfaffenhofen.[35][36] D1 was the first time that control of a manned STS mission payload was not in U.S. hands.[17]

At times, the orbiter itself was referred to as the Space Shuttle. This was not technically correct as the Space Shuttle was the combination of the orbiter, the external tank, and the two solid rocket boosters. These components, once assembled in the Vehicle Assembly Building originally built to assemble the Apollo Saturn V rocket, were commonly referred to as the "stack".[37]

Responsibility for the Shuttle components was spread among multiple NASA field centers. The Kennedy Space Center was responsible for launch, landing and turnaround operations for equatorial orbits (the only orbit profile actually used in the program), the US Air Force at the Vandenberg Air Force Base was responsible for launch, landing and turnaround operations for polar orbits (though this was never used), the Johnson Space Center served as the central point for all Shuttle operations, the Marshall Space Flight Center was responsible for the main engines, external tank, and solid rocket boosters, the John C. Stennis Space Center handled main engine testing, and the Goddard Space Flight Center managed the global tracking network.[38]

The orbiter resembled a conventional aircraft, with double-delta wings swept 81 at the inner leading edge and 45 at the outer leading edge. Its vertical stabilizer's leading edge was swept back at a 50 angle. The four elevons, mounted at the trailing edge of the wings, and the rudder/speed brake, attached at the trailing edge of the stabilizer, with the body flap, controlled the orbiter during descent and landing.

The orbiter's 60-foot (18m)-long payload bay, comprising most of the fuselage, could accommodate cylindrical payloads up to 15 feet (4.6m) in diameter. Information declassified in 2011 showed that these measurements were chosen specifically to accommodate the KH-9 HEXAGON spy satellite operated by the National Reconnaissance Office.[39] Two mostly-symmetrical lengthwise payload bay doors hinged on either side of the bay comprised its entire top. Payloads were generally loaded horizontally into the bay while the orbiter was standing upright on the launch pad and unloaded vertically in the near-weightless orbital environment by the orbiter's robotic remote manipulator arm (under astronaut control), EVA astronauts, or under the payloads' own power (as for satellites attached to a rocket "upper stage" for deployment.)

Three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) were mounted on the orbiter's aft fuselage in a triangular pattern. The engine nozzles could gimbal 10.5 degrees up and down, and 8.5 degrees from side to side during ascent to change the direction of their thrust to steer the Shuttle. The orbiter structure was made primarily from aluminum alloy, although the engine structure was made primarily from titanium alloy.

The operational orbiters built were OV-102 Columbia, OV-099 Challenger, OV-103 Discovery, OV-104 Atlantis, and OV-105 Endeavour.[40]

Space Shuttle Endeavour being transported by a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft

An overhead view of Atlantis as it sits atop the Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP) before STS-79. Two Tail Service Masts (TSMs) to either side of the orbiter's tail provide umbilical connections for propellant loading and electrical power.

Water is released onto the mobile launcher platform on Launch Pad 39A at the start of a sound suppression system test in 2004. During launch, 350,000 US gallons (1,300,000L) of water are poured onto the pad in 41 seconds.[41]

The main function of the Space Shuttle external tank was to supply the liquid oxygen and hydrogen fuel to the main engines. It was also the backbone of the launch vehicle, providing attachment points for the two solid rocket boosters and the orbiter. The external tank was the only part of the Shuttle system that was not reused. Although the external tanks were always discarded, it would have been possible to take them into orbit and re-use them (such as a wet workshop for incorporation into a space station).[28][42]

Two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) each provided 12,500kN (2,800,000lbf) of thrust at liftoff,[43] which was 83% of the total thrust at liftoff. The SRBs were jettisoned two minutes after launch at a height of about 46km (150,000ft), and then deployed parachutes and landed in the ocean to be recovered.[44] The SRB cases were made of steel about inch (13mm) thick.[45] The solid rocket boosters were re-used many times; the casing used in Ares I engine testing in 2009 consisted of motor cases that had been flown, collectively, on 48 Shuttle missions, including STS-1.[46]

Astronauts who have flown on multiple spacecraft report that Shuttle delivers a rougher ride than Apollo or Soyuz.[47][48] The additional vibration is caused by the solid rocket boosters, as solid fuel does not burn as evenly as liquid fuel. The vibration dampens down after the solid rocket boosters have been jettisoned.[49][50]

Two SRB on the crawler prior to mating with the Shuttle

SRB sections filled with solid propellant being assembled

Orbiter and the external tank, flanked by the two solid rocket boosters

The orbiter could be used in conjunction with a variety of add-ons depending on the mission. This included orbital laboratories (Spacelab, Spacehab), boosters for launching payloads farther into space (Inertial Upper Stage, Payload Assist Module), and other functions, such as provided by Extended Duration Orbiter, Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules, or Canadarm (RMS). An upper stage called Transfer Orbit Stage (Orbital Science Corp. TOS-21) was also used once with the orbiter.[51] Other types of systems and racks were part of the modular Spacelab system pallets, igloo, IPS, etc., which also supported special missions such as SRTM.[52]

A major component of the Space Shuttle Program was Spacelab, primarily contributed by a consortium of European countries, and operated in conjunction with the United States and international partners.[52] Supported by a modular system of pressurized modules, pallets, and systems, Spacelab missions executed on multidisciplinary science, orbital logistics, and international cooperation.[52] Over 29 missions flew on subjects ranging from astronomy, microgravity, radar, and life sciences, to name a few.[52] Spacelab hardware also supported missions such as Hubble (HST) servicing and space station resupply.[52] STS-2 and STS-3 provided testing, and the first full mission was Spacelab-1 (STS-9) launched on November 28, 1983.[52]

Spacelab formally began in 1973, after a meeting in Brussels, Belgium, by European heads of state.[31] Within the decade, Spacelab went into orbit and provided Europe and the United States with an orbital workshop and hardware system.[31] International cooperation, science, and exploration were realized on Spacelab.[52]

The Shuttle was one of the earliest craft to use a computerized fly-by-wire digital flight control system. This means no mechanical or hydraulic linkages connected the pilot's control stick to the control surfaces or reaction control system thrusters. The control algorithm, which used a classical Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) approach, was developed and maintained by Honeywell.[citation needed] The Shuttle's fly-by-wire digital flight control system was composed of 4 control systems each addressing a different mission phase: Ascent, Descent, On-Orbit and Aborts.[citation needed] Honeywell is also credited with the design and implementation of the Shuttle's Nose Wheel Steering Control Algorithm that allowed the Orbiter to safely land at Kennedy Space Center's Shuttle Runway.[citation needed]

A concern with using digital fly-by-wire systems on the Shuttle was reliability. Considerable research went into the Shuttle computer system. The Shuttle used five identical redundant IBM 32-bit general purpose computers (GPCs), model AP-101, constituting a type of embedded system. Four computers ran specialized software called the Primary Avionics Software System (PASS). A fifth backup computer ran separate software called the Backup Flight System (BFS). Collectively they were called the Data Processing System (DPS).[53][54]

The design goal of the Shuttle's DPS was fail-operational/fail-safe reliability. After a single failure, the Shuttle could still continue the mission. After two failures, it could still land safely.

The four general-purpose computers operated essentially in lockstep, checking each other. If one computer provided a different result than the other three (i.e. the one computer failed), the three functioning computers "voted" it out of the system. This isolated it from vehicle control. If a second computer of the three remaining failed, the two functioning computers voted it out. A very unlikely failure mode would have been where two of the computers produced result A, and two produced result B (a two-two split). In this unlikely case, one group of two was to be picked at random.

The Backup Flight System (BFS) was separately developed software running on the fifth computer, used only if the entire four-computer primary system failed. The BFS was created because although the four primary computers were hardware redundant, they all ran the same software, so a generic software problem could crash all of them. Embedded system avionic software was developed under totally different conditions from public commercial software: the number of code lines was tiny compared to a public commercial software product, changes were only made infrequently and with extensive testing, and many programming and test personnel worked on the small amount of computer code. However, in theory it could have still failed, and the BFS existed for that contingency. While the BFS could run in parallel with PASS, the BFS never engaged to take over control from PASS during any Shuttle mission.

The software for the Shuttle computers was written in a high-level language called HAL/S, somewhat similar to PL/I. It is specifically designed for a real time embedded system environment.

The IBM AP-101 computers originally had about 424 kilobytes of magnetic core memory each. The CPU could process about 400,000 instructions per second. They had no hard disk drive, and loaded software from magnetic tape cartridges.

In 1990, the original computers were replaced with an upgraded model AP-101S, which had about 2.5 times the memory capacity (about 1 megabyte) and three times the processor speed (about 1.2million instructions per second). The memory was changed from magnetic core to semiconductor with battery backup.

Early Shuttle missions, starting in November 1983, took along the Grid Compass, arguably one of the first laptop computers. The GRiD was given the name SPOC, for Shuttle Portable Onboard Computer. Use on the Shuttle required both hardware and software modifications which were incorporated into later versions of the commercial product. It was used to monitor and display the Shuttle's ground position, path of the next two orbits, show where the Shuttle had line of sight communications with ground stations, and determine points for location-specific observations of the Earth. The Compass sold poorly, as it cost at least US$8000, but it offered unmatched performance for its weight and size.[55] NASA was one of its main customers.[56]

During its service life, the Shuttle's Control System never experienced a failure. Many of the lessons learned have been used to design today's high speed control algorithms.[57]

The prototype orbiter Enterprise originally had a flag of the United States on the upper surface of the left wing and the letters "USA" in black on the right wing. The name "Enterprise" was painted in black on the payload bay doors just above the hinge and behind the crew module; on the aft end of the payload bay doors was the NASA "worm" logotype in gray. Underneath the rear of the payload bay doors on the side of the fuselage just above the wing is the text "United States" in black with a flag of the United States ahead of it.

The first operational orbiter, Columbia, originally had the same markings as Enterprise, although the letters "USA" on the right wing were slightly larger and spaced farther apart. Columbia also had black markings which Enterprise lacked on its forward RCS module, around the cockpit windows, and on its vertical stabilizer, and had distinctive black "chines" on the forward part of its upper wing surfaces, which none of the other orbiters had.

Challenger established a modified marking scheme for the shuttle fleet that was matched by Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour. The letters "USA" in black above an American flag were displayed on the left wing, with the NASA "worm" logotype in gray centered above the name of the orbiter in black on the right wing. The name of the orbiter was inscribed not on the payload bay doors, but on the forward fuselage just below and behind the cockpit windows. This would make the name visible when the shuttle was photographed in orbit with the doors open.

In 1983, Enterprise had its wing markings changed to match Challenger, and the NASA "worm" logotype on the aft end of the payload bay doors was changed from gray to black. Some black markings were added to the nose, cockpit windows and vertical tail to more closely resemble the flight vehicles, but the name "Enterprise" remained on the payload bay doors as there was never any need to open them. Columbia had its name moved to the forward fuselage to match the other flight vehicles after STS-61-C, during the 198688 hiatus when the shuttle fleet was grounded following the loss of Challenger, but retained its original wing markings until its last overhaul (after STS-93), and its unique black wing "chines" for the remainder of its operational life.

Beginning in 1998, the flight vehicles' markings were modified to incorporate the NASA "meatball" insignia. The "worm" logotype, which the agency had phased out, was removed from the payload bay doors and the "meatball" insignia was added aft of the "United States" text on the lower aft fuselage. The "meatball" insignia was also displayed on the left wing, with the American flag above the orbiter's name, left-justified rather than centered, on the right wing. The three surviving flight vehicles, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour, still bear these markings as museum displays. Enterprise became the property of the Smithsonian Institution in 1985 and was no longer under NASA's control when these changes were made, hence the prototype orbiter still has its 1983 markings and still has its name on the payload bay doors.

The Space Shuttle was initially developed in the 1970s,[58] but received many upgrades and modifications afterward to improve performance, reliability and safety. Internally, the Shuttle remained largely similar to the original design, with the exception of the improved avionics computers. In addition to the computer upgrades, the original analog primary flight instruments were replaced with modern full-color, flat-panel display screens, called a glass cockpit, which is similar to those of contemporary airliners. To facilitate construction of ISS, the internal airlocks of each orbiter except Columbia[59] were replaced with external docking systems to allow for a greater amount of cargo to be stored on the Shuttle's mid-deck during station resupply missions.

The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) had several improvements to enhance reliability and power. This explains phrases such as "Main engines throttling up to 104 percent." This did not mean the engines were being run over a safe limit. The 100 percent figure was the original specified power level. During the lengthy development program, Rocketdyne determined the engine was capable of safe reliable operation at 104 percent of the originally specified thrust. NASA could have rescaled the output number, saying in essence 104 percent is now 100 percent. To clarify this would have required revising much previous documentation and software, so the 104 percent number was retained. SSME upgrades were denoted as "block numbers", such as block I, block II, and block IIA. The upgrades improved engine reliability, maintainability and performance. The 109% thrust level was finally reached in flight hardware with the Block II engines in 2001. The normal maximum throttle was 104 percent, with 106 percent or 109 percent used for mission aborts.

For the first two missions, STS-1 and STS-2, the external tank was painted white to protect the insulation that covers much of the tank, but improvements and testing showed that it was not required. The weight saved by not painting the tank resulted in an increase in payload capability to orbit.[60] Additional weight was saved by removing some of the internal "stringers" in the hydrogen tank that proved unnecessary. The resulting "light-weight external tank" was first flown on STS-6 [61] and used on the majority of Shuttle missions. STS-91 saw the first flight of the "super light-weight external tank". This version of the tank was made of the 2195 aluminum-lithium alloy. It weighed 3.4 metric tons (7,500lb) less than the last run of lightweight tanks, allowing the Shuttle to deliver heavy elements to ISS's high inclination orbit.[61] As the Shuttle was always operated with a crew, each of these improvements was first flown on operational mission flights.

The solid rocket boosters underwent improvements as well. Design engineers added a third O-ring seal to the joints between the segments after the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Several other SRB improvements were planned to improve performance and safety, but never came to be. These culminated in the considerably simpler, lower cost, probably safer and better-performing Advanced Solid Rocket Booster. These rockets entered production in the early to mid-1990s to support the Space Station, but were later canceled to save money after the expenditure of $2.2billion.[62] The loss of the ASRB program resulted in the development of the Super LightWeight external Tank (SLWT), which provided some of the increased payload capability, while not providing any of the safety improvements. In addition, the US Air Force developed their own much lighter single-piece SRB design using a filament-wound system, but this too was canceled.

STS-70 was delayed in 1995, when woodpeckers bored holes in the foam insulation of Discovery's external tank. Since then, NASA has installed commercial plastic owl decoys and inflatable owl balloons which had to be removed prior to launch.[63] The delicate nature of the foam insulation had been the cause of damage to the Thermal Protection System, the tile heat shield and heat wrap of the orbiter. NASA remained confident that this damage, while it was the primary cause of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster on February 1, 2003, would not jeopardize the completion of the International Space Station (ISS) in the projected time allotted.

A cargo-only, unmanned variant of the Shuttle was variously proposed and rejected since the 1980s. It was called the Shuttle-C, and would have traded re-usability for cargo capability, with large potential savings from reusing technology developed for the Space Shuttle. Another proposal was to convert the payload bay into a passenger area, with versions ranging from 30 to 74 seats, three days in orbit, and cost US$1.5million per seat.[64]

On the first four Shuttle missions, astronauts wore modified US Air Force high-altitude full-pressure suits, which included a full-pressure helmet during ascent and descent. From the fifth flight, STS-5, until the loss of Challenger, one-piece light blue nomex flight suits and partial-pressure helmets were worn. A less-bulky, partial-pressure version of the high-altitude pressure suits with a helmet was reinstated when Shuttle flights resumed in 1988. The Launch-Entry Suit ended its service life in late 1995, and was replaced by the full-pressure Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES), which resembled the Gemini space suit in design, but retained the orange color of the Launch-Entry Suit.

To extend the duration that orbiters could stay docked at the ISS, the Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System (SSPTS) was installed. The SSPTS allowed these orbiters to use power provided by the ISS to preserve their consumables. The SSPTS was first used successfully on STS-118.

Orbiter[65] (for Endeavour, OV-105)

External tank (for SLWT)

Solid Rocket Boosters

System Stack

All Space Shuttle missions were launched from Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The weather criteria used for launch included, but were not limited to: precipitation, temperatures, cloud cover, lightning forecast, wind, and humidity.[70] The Shuttle was not launched under conditions where it could have been struck by lightning. Aircraft are often struck by lightning with no adverse effects because the electricity of the strike is dissipated through its conductive structure and the aircraft is not electrically grounded. Like most jet airliners, the Shuttle was mainly constructed of conductive aluminum, which would normally shield and protect the internal systems. However, upon liftoff the Shuttle sent out a long exhaust plume as it ascended, and this plume could have triggered lightning by providing a current path to ground. The NASA Anvil Rule for a Shuttle launch stated that an anvil cloud could not appear within a distance of 10 nautical miles.[71] The Shuttle Launch Weather Officer monitored conditions until the final decision to scrub a launch was announced. In addition, the weather conditions had to be acceptable at one of the Transatlantic Abort Landing sites (one of several Space Shuttle abort modes) to launch as well as the solid rocket booster recovery area.[70][72] While the Shuttle might have safely endured a lightning strike, a similar strike caused problems on Apollo 12, so for safety NASA chose not to launch the Shuttle if lightning was possible (NPR8715.5).

Historically, the Shuttle was not launched if its flight would run from December to January (a year-end rollover or YERO). Its flight software, designed in the 1970s, was not designed for this, and would require the orbiter's computers be reset through a change of year, which could cause a glitch while in orbit. In 2007, NASA engineers devised a solution so Shuttle flights could cross the year-end boundary.[73]

After the final hold in the countdown at T-minus 9 minutes, the Shuttle went through its final preparations for launch, and the countdown was automatically controlled by the Ground Launch Sequencer (GLS), software at the Launch Control Center, which stopped the count if it sensed a critical problem with any of the Shuttle's onboard systems. The GLS handed off the count to the Shuttle's on-board computers at T minus 31 seconds, in a process called auto sequence start.

At T-minus 16 seconds, the massive sound suppression system (SPS) began to drench the Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP) and SRB trenches with 300,000 US gallons (1,100m3) of water to protect the Orbiter from damage by acoustical energy and rocket exhaust reflected from the flame trench and MLP during lift off.[74][75]

At T-minus 10 seconds, hydrogen igniters were activated under each engine bell to quell the stagnant gas inside the cones before ignition. Failure to burn these gases could trip the onboard sensors and create the possibility of an overpressure and explosion of the vehicle during the firing phase. The main engine turbopumps also began charging the combustion chambers with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen at this time. The computers reciprocated this action by allowing the redundant computer systems to begin the firing phase.

The three main engines (SSMEs) started at T-6.6 seconds. The main engines ignited sequentially via the Shuttle's general purpose computers (GPCs) at 120 millisecond intervals. All three SSMEs were required to reach 90% rated thrust within three seconds, otherwise the onboard computers would initiate an RSLS abort. If all three engines indicated nominal performance by T-3 seconds, they were commanded to gimbal to liftoff configuration and the command would be issued to arm the SRBs for ignition at T-0.[76] Between T-6.6 seconds and T-3 seconds, while the SSMEs were firing but the SRBs were still bolted to the pad, the offset thrust caused the entire launch stack (boosters, tank and orbiter) to pitch down 650mm (25.5in) measured at the tip of the external tank. The three second delay after confirmation of SSME operation was to allow the stack to return to nearly vertical. At T-0 seconds, the 8 frangible nuts holding the SRBs to the pad were detonated, the SSMEs were commanded to 100% throttle, and the SRBs were ignited. By T+0.23 seconds, the SRBs built up enough thrust for liftoff to commence, and reached maximum chamber pressure by T+0.6 seconds.[77] The Johnson Space Center's Mission Control Center assumed control of the flight once the SRBs had cleared the launch tower.

Shortly after liftoff, the Shuttle's main engines were throttled up to 104.5% and the vehicle began a combined roll, pitch and yaw maneuver that placed it onto the correct heading (azimuth) for the planned orbital inclination and in a heads down attitude with wings level. The Shuttle flew upside down during the ascent phase. This orientation allowed a trim angle of attack that was favorable for aerodynamic loads during the region of high dynamic pressure, resulting in a net positive load factor, as well as providing the flight crew with a view of the horizon as a visual reference. The vehicle climbed in a progressively flattening arc, accelerating as the mass of the SRBs and main tank decreased. To achieve low orbit requires much more horizontal than vertical acceleration. This was not visually obvious, since the vehicle rose vertically and was out of sight for most of the horizontal acceleration. The near circular orbital velocity at the 380 kilometers (236mi) altitude of the International Space Station is 27,650km/h (17,180mph), roughly equivalent to Mach 23 at sea level. As the International Space Station orbits at an inclination of 51.6 degrees, missions going there must set orbital inclination to the same value in order to rendezvous with the station.

Around 30 seconds into ascent, the SSMEs were throttled downusually to 72%, though this variedto reduce the maximum aerodynamic forces acting on the Shuttle at a point called Max Q. Additionally, the propellant grain design of the SRBs caused their thrust to drop by about 30% by 50 seconds into ascent. Once the Orbiter's guidance verified that Max Q would be within Shuttle structural limits, the main engines were throttled back up to 104.5%; this throttling down and back up was called the "thrust bucket". To maximize performance, the throttle level and timing of the thrust bucket was shaped to bring the Shuttle as close to aerodynamic limits as possible.[78]

At around T+126 seconds, pyrotechnic fasteners released the SRBs and small separation rockets pushed them laterally away from the vehicle. The SRBs parachuted back to the ocean to be reused. The Shuttle then began accelerating to orbit on the main engines. Acceleration at this point would typically fall to .9 g, and the vehicle would take on a somewhat nose-up angle to the horizon it used the main engines to gain and then maintain altitude while it accelerated horizontally towards orbit. At about five and three-quarter minutes into ascent, the orbiter's direct communication links with the ground began to fade, at which point it rolled heads up to reroute its communication links to the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite system.

At about seven and a half minutes into ascent, the mass of the vehicle was low enough that the engines had to be throttled back to limit vehicle acceleration to 3 g (29.4m/s or 96.5ft/s, equivalent to accelerating from zero to 105.9km/h (65.8mph) in a second). The Shuttle would maintain this acceleration for the next minute, and main engine cut-off (MECO) occurred at about eight and a half minutes after launch.[79] The main engines were shut down before complete depletion of propellant, as running dry would have destroyed the engines. The oxygen supply was terminated before the hydrogen supply, as the SSMEs reacted unfavorably to other shutdown modes. (Liquid oxygen has a tendency to react violently, and supports combustion when it encounters hot engine metal.) A few seconds after MECO, the external tank was released by firing pyrotechnic fasteners.

At this point the Shuttle and external tank were on a slightly suborbital trajectory, coasting up towards apogee. Once at apogee, about half an hour after MECO, the Shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines were fired to raise its perigee and achieve orbit, while the external tank fell back into the atmosphere and burned up over the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean depending on launch profile.[65] The sealing action of the tank plumbing and lack of pressure relief systems on the external tank helped it break up in the lower atmosphere. After the foam burned away during re-entry, the heat caused a pressure buildup in the remaining liquid oxygen and hydrogen until the tank exploded. This ensured that any pieces that fell back to Earth were small.

The Shuttle was monitored throughout its ascent for short range tracking (10 seconds before liftoff through 57 seconds after), medium range (7 seconds before liftoff through 110 seconds after) and long range (7 seconds before liftoff through 165 seconds after). Short range cameras included 22 16mm cameras on the Mobile Launch Platform and 8 16mm on the Fixed Service Structure, 4 high speed fixed cameras located on the perimeter of the launch complex plus an additional 42 fixed cameras with 16mm motion picture film. Medium range cameras included remotely operated tracking cameras at the launch complex plus 6 sites along the immediate coast north and south of the launch pad, each with 800mm lens and high speed cameras running 100 frames per second. These cameras ran for only 410 seconds due to limitations in the amount of film available. Long range cameras included those mounted on the external tank, SRBs and orbiter itself which streamed live video back to the ground providing valuable information about any debris falling during ascent. Long range tracking cameras with 400-inch film and 200-inch video lenses were operated by a photographer at Playalinda Beach as well as 9 other sites from 38 miles north at the Ponce Inlet to 23 miles south to Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) and additional mobile optical tracking camera was stationed on Merritt Island during launches. A total of 10 HD cameras were used both for ascent information for engineers and broadcast feeds to networks such as NASA TV and HDNet. The number of cameras significantly increased and numerous existing cameras were upgraded at the recommendation of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board to provide better information about the debris during launch. Debris was also tracked using a pair of Weibel Continuous Pulse Doppler X-band radars, one on board the SRB recovery ship MV Liberty Star positioned north east of the launch pad and on a ship positioned south of the launch pad. Additionally, during the first 2 flights following the loss of Columbia and her crew, a pair of NASA WB-57 reconnaissance aircraft equipped with HD Video and Infrared flew at 60,000 feet (18,000m) to provide additional views of the launch ascent.[80] Kennedy Space Center also invested nearly $3million in improvements to the digital video analysis systems in support of debris tracking.[81]

Once in orbit, the Shuttle usually flew at an altitude of 320km (170nmi) and occasionally as high as 650km (350nmi).[82] In the 1980s and 1990s, many flights involved space science missions on the NASA/ESA Spacelab, or launching various types of satellites and science probes. By the 1990s and 2000s the focus shifted more to servicing the space station, with fewer satellite launches. Most missions involved staying in orbit several days to two weeks, although longer missions were possible with the Extended Duration Orbiter add-on or when attached to a space station.

Almost the entire Space Shuttle re-entry procedure, except for lowering the landing gear and deploying the air data probes, was normally performed under computer control. However, the re-entry could be flown entirely manually if an emergency arose. The approach and landing phase could be controlled by the autopilot, but was usually hand flown.

The vehicle began re-entry by firing the Orbital maneuvering system engines, while flying upside down, backside first, in the opposite direction to orbital motion for approximately three minutes, which reduced the Shuttle's velocity by about 200mph (322km/h). The resultant slowing of the Shuttle lowered its orbital perigee down into the upper atmosphere. The Shuttle then flipped over, by pushing its nose down (which was actually "up" relative to the Earth, because it was flying upside down). This OMS firing was done roughly halfway around the globe from the landing site.

The vehicle started encountering more significant air density in the lower thermosphere at about 400,000ft (120km), at around Mach 25, 8,200m/s (30,000km/h; 18,000mph). The vehicle was controlled by a combination of RCS thrusters and control surfaces, to fly at a 40-degree nose-up attitude, producing high drag, not only to slow it down to landing speed, but also to reduce reentry heating. As the vehicle encountered progressively denser air, it began a gradual transition from spacecraft to aircraft. In a straight line, its 40-degree nose-up attitude would cause the descent angle to flatten-out, or even rise. The vehicle therefore performed a series of four steep S-shaped banking turns, each lasting several minutes, at up to 70 degrees of bank, while still maintaining the 40-degree angle of attack. In this way it dissipated speed sideways rather than upwards. This occurred during the 'hottest' phase of re-entry, when the heat-shield glowed red and the G-forces were at their highest. By the end of the last turn, the transition to aircraft was almost complete. The vehicle leveled its wings, lowered its nose into a shallow dive and began its approach to the landing site.

Simulation of the outside of the Shuttle as it heats up to over 1,500C during re-entry.

A Space Shuttle model undergoes a wind tunnel test in 1975. This test is simulating the ionized gasses that surround a Shuttle as it reenters the atmosphere.

A computer simulation of high velocity air flow around the Space Shuttle during re-entry.

The orbiter's maximum glide ratio/lift-to-drag ratio varies considerably with speed, ranging from 1:1 at hypersonic speeds, 2:1 at supersonic speeds and reaching 4.5:1 at subsonic speeds during approach and landing.[83]

In the lower atmosphere, the orbiter flies much like a conventional glider, except for a much higher descent rate, over 50m/s (180km/h; 110mph) or 9,800 fpm. At approximately Mach 3, two air data probes, located on the left and right sides of the orbiter's forward lower fuselage, are deployed to sense air pressure related to the vehicle's movement in the atmosphere.

When the approach and landing phase began, the orbiter was at a 3,000m (9,800ft) altitude, 12km (7.5mi) from the runway. The pilots applied aerodynamic braking to help slow down the vehicle. The orbiter's speed was reduced from 682 to 346km/h (424 to 215mph), approximately, at touch-down (compared to 260km/h or 160mph for a jet airliner). The landing gear was deployed while the Orbiter was flying at 430km/h (270mph). To assist the speed brakes, a 12m (39ft) drag chute was deployed either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about 343km/h (213mph). The chute was jettisoned once the orbiter slowed to 110km/h (68.4mph).

Media related to Landings of space Shuttles at Wikimedia Commons

After landing, the vehicle stayed on the runway for several hours for the orbiter to cool. Teams at the front and rear of the orbiter tested for presence of hydrogen, hydrazine, monomethylhydrazine, nitrogen tetroxide and ammonia (fuels and by-products of the reaction control system and the orbiter's three APUs). If hydrogen was detected, an emergency would be declared, the orbiter powered down and teams would evacuate the area. A convoy of 25 specially designed vehicles and 150 trained engineers and technicians approached the orbiter. Purge and vent lines were attached to remove toxic gases from fuel lines and the cargo bay about 4560 minutes after landing. A flight surgeon boarded the orbiter for initial medical checks of the crew before disembarking. Once the crew left the orbiter, responsibility for the vehicle was handed from the Johnson Space Center back to the Kennedy Space Center.[84]

If the mission ended at Edwards Air Force Base in California, White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico, or any of the runways the orbiter might use in an emergency, the orbiter was loaded atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, a modified 747, for transport back to the Kennedy Space Center, landing at the Shuttle Landing Facility. Once at the Shuttle Landing Facility, the orbiter was then towed 2 miles (3.2km) along a tow-way and access roads normally used by tour buses and KSC employees to the Orbiter Processing Facility where it began a months-long preparation process for the next mission.[84]

NASA preferred Space Shuttle landings to be at Kennedy Space Center.[85] If weather conditions made landing there unfavorable, the Shuttle could delay its landing until conditions are favorable, touch down at Edwards Air Force Base, California, or use one of the multiple alternate landing sites around the world. A landing at any site other than Kennedy Space Center meant that after touchdown the Shuttle must be mated to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and returned to Cape Canaveral. Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-3) once landed at the White Sands Space Harbor, New Mexico; this was viewed as a last resort as NASA scientists believed that the sand could potentially damage the Shuttle's exterior.

There were many alternative landing sites that were never used.[86][87]

An example of technical risk analysis for a STS mission is SPRA iteration 3.1 top risk contributors for STS-133:[88][89]

An internal NASA risk assessment study (conducted by the Shuttle Program Safety and Mission Assurance Office at Johnson Space Center) released in late 2010 or early 2011 concluded that the agency had seriously underestimated the level of risk involved in operating the Shuttle. The report assessed that there was a 1 in 9 chance of a catastrophic disaster during the first nine flights of the Shuttle but that safety improvements had later improved the risk ratio to 1 in 90.[90]

Below is a list of major events in the Space Shuttle orbiter fleet.

Sources: NASA launch manifest,[94] NASA Space Shuttle archive[95]

On January 28, 1986, Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds after launch due to the failure of the right SRB, killing all seven astronauts on board. The disaster was caused by low-temperature impairment of an O-ring, a mission critical seal used between segments of the SRB casing. Failure of the O-ring allowed hot combustion gases to escape from between the booster sections and burn through the adjacent external tank, causing it to explode.[96] Repeated warnings from design engineers voicing concerns about the lack of evidence of the O-rings' safety when the temperature was below 53F (12C) had been ignored by NASA managers.[97]

On February 1, 2003, Columbia disintegrated during re-entry, killing its crew of seven, because of damage to the carbon-carbon leading edge of the wing caused during launch. Ground control engineers had made three separate requests for high-resolution images taken by the Department of Defense that would have provided an understanding of the extent of the damage, while NASA's chief thermal protection system (TPS) engineer requested that astronauts on board Columbia be allowed to leave the vehicle to inspect the damage. NASA managers intervened to stop the Department of Defense's assistance and refused the request for the spacewalk,[98] and thus the feasibility of scenarios for astronaut repair or rescue by Atlantis were not considered by NASA management at the time.[99]

NASA retired the Space Shuttle in 2011, after 30 years of service. The Shuttle was originally conceived of and presented to the public as a "Space Truck", which would, among other things, be used to build a United States space station in low earth orbit in the early 1990s. When the US space station evolved into the International Space Station project, which suffered from long delays and design changes before it could be completed, the retirement of the Space Shuttle was delayed several times until 2011, serving at least 15 years longer than originally planned. Discovery was the first of NASA's three remaining operational Space Shuttles to be retired.[100]

Read this article:

Space Shuttle - Wikipedia

Space Adventures, Ltd. | Zero Gravity Flight

Aboard a specially modified Boeing 727-200, G-FORCE ONE, weightlessness is achieved by doing aerobatic maneuvers known as parabolas. Specially trained pilots perform these aerobatic maneuvers which are not simulated in any way. ZERO-G passengers experience true weightlessness.

Before starting a parabola, G-FORCE ONEflies level to the horizon at an altitude of 24,000 feet. The pilots then begins to pull up, gradually increasing the angle of the aircraft to about 45 to the horizon reaching an altitude of 34,000 feet. During this pull-up, passengers will feel the pull of 1.8 Gs. Next the plane is pushed over to create the zero gravity segment of the parabola. For the next 20-30 seconds everything in the plane is weightless. Next a gentle pull-out is started which allows the flyers to stabilize on the aircraft floor. This maneuver is repeated 12-15 times, each taking about ten miles of airspace to perform.

In addition to achieving zero gravity, G-FORCE ONEalso flies a parabola designed to offer Lunar gravity (one sixth your weight)and Martian gravity (one third your weight). This is created by flying a larger arc over the top of the parabola.

G-FORCE ONEflies in a FAA designated airspace that is approximately 100 miles long and ten miles wide. Usually three to five parabolas are flown consecutively with short periods of level flight between each set.

Here is the original post:

Space Adventures, Ltd. | Zero Gravity Flight

NASASpaceFlight.com Forum – Index

L2 Master Section

The home of L2 Space Shuttle Content and all Current Vehicle documentation etc. Everything that is not already in a specific L2 home.

Click L2 SIGN UP above for access to ALL L2 sections

58756 Posts 4380 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon 02/05/2018 01:39 PM

L2 SpaceX Section - All vehicles, including missions specials.

29091 Posts 160 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon Today at 04:07 AM

L2 Orbital ATK Section - All vehicles - including mission(s) specials, CRS and others.

2256 Posts 49 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon 01/30/2018 10:44 AM

L2 Specific ISS Section, full of unreleased presentations, videos, photos, status updates more.

10322 Posts 609 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon 02/04/2018 06:00 PM

L2 Section for Commercial Crew Vehicles from Atlas V HR to Dream Chaser and Starliner etc.

5128 Posts 64 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon 02/04/2018 06:05 PM

L2 Section for Russian vehicles. Exclusive content, from historical Russian vehicles, to exclusive Buran videos, Soyuz and through to RSC Energia's next gen vehicle.

3408 Posts 148 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon 02/04/2018 12:36 PM

L2 section for Orion and Future Vehicles (other than Commercial Crew), future technology (Prop Depots, etc) and archive of CxP vehicles.

19636 Posts 631 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon Today at 02:19 AM

L2 Section coverage SLS and HLV (Ares V onwards) presentations, videos, updates - through to the ongoing Exploration Roadmap construction - all exclusive.

14517 Posts 208 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon 02/04/2018 10:35 PM

A New Section featuring thousands and thousands of stunning downloadable hi res photos, from exclusive hardware shots to unreleased on orbit mission photos.

10267 Posts 313 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon 02/01/2018 06:09 PM

Unreleased presentations and videos from the first days of Cape Canaveral, through to Saturn/Apollo and the early days of the shuttle program.

11423 Posts 502 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon 02/04/2018 05:51 PM

L2 section containing amazing unreleased videos, from riding on the flight decks of orbiters through re-entry, to launch and mission videos, to technical evaluation videos. L2 membership gains access to all L2 sections.

5339 Posts 268 Topics

Last post by Protectedin Protectedon 02/03/2018 01:41 PM

Read more here:

NASASpaceFlight.com Forum - Index

Orion update: Lighting the fire of awareness Part 2 – SpaceFlight Insider

Jason Rhian

August 22nd, 2017

NASA has deployed its officials, including the agencys astronauts, to help inspire those who are working to produce the rockets and spacecraft that are designed to propel crews further into space than has ever been attempted before. Image Credit: NASA

SpaceFlight Insider continues its update of recent developments with NASAs Orion spacecraft; more specifically, public outreach efforts that the U.S. space agency is undertaking to prepare the nation for its return to exploring deep spacean undertaking it has not attempted since the historic Apollo 17 mission, which concluded in December 1972. During a recent event held at the AMRO Fabricating Facility in South El Monte, California, NASA astronaut Lee Morin had a chance to review progress being madeand to thank those who are working on these flight systems.

When it comes to inspiring people about the U.S. efforts to explore the deep reaches of the Solar System, few people can inspire like an astronaut. SpaceFlight Insider spoke with NASA astronaut Lee Morin about what the space agency had him doing to provide not just an understanding of space but also an excitement for what awaits.

Official NASA astronaut portrait of Lee Morin (Aug. 30, 2010). Photo Credit: Robert Markowitz / NASA

SFI: For starters, youre at an event at the AMRO facilities right now, correct?

Morin:Yes.

SFI: How are you using this event to inform the public or maybe just the space community about NASAs new crew-rated spacecraft, Orion?

Morin: We have a whole system of subcontractors, suppliers, and subcontractor supplier management at NASA, as you may know. And we have small businesses, suppliers, all over the country. And so as they are delivering our hardware, we generally have people that, you know, come and visit them. We take these opportunities to come and thank the team for their hard work, their craftsmanship, and we invite the media out and the local congressionals, mayors, the city people in El Monte; were here in South El Monte. Its a way to shine a light on the businesses doing this great work. It helps the employees. They have a sense of pride, I think, and theyre very proud to work on this program. So its a strategy we use to thank all the people that are helping us get to deep space.

SFI: So lets talk a bit about that, then. Whats been the reaction of some of the people that youve met there today, Lee, in terms of meeting you and their work on Orion? How are they responding to being able to be involved with NASAs new crew-rated spacecraft?

Morin: Everyone heres been very excited. You can see their faces light up. The fact that they get to go out and talk to an astronaut and have their picture taken in front of the hardware theyve built that one of my colleagues will be flying out beyond the Moon is very exciting. By my coming, it sort of puts a face on it for them in terms of their ultimate customer, and people that betting their lives on their handiwork and craftsmanship.

I personally have an interest in machining. I was an amateur machinist, so I was treated to sort of a behind-the-scenes look and getting to look at some of the machines and talk to some of the people on the line that operate those machines. So for me, that was an exciting trip. But I know that having someone from NASA come out and have an interest in their contribution and what theyre doing means a lot to them as well.

SFI: As much as youre inspiring the folks, I remember that Gus Grissom did a tour back in the Apollo days, and Gus was known for being a competent engineer, but not much of a spokesman. And he basically looked at the engineers and said, Do good work. What have they taught you? I know that any time you interact with folks, its always a two-way street. They get to be inspired by seeing the people who are going to fly on these exciting new spacecraft, but what have you personally taken away from this experience today?

Morin:Well, I always get invigorated talking to the public, whether thats at a school or at a plant like this. I can just see the enthusiasm of the people. In their day-to-day lives theyre doing their jobs, but what theyre doing in the case here is something that culminates in an important milestone for the country. I think [Barbara Zelon] and her team do a great job conveying that to them: that their role is very important. And traditionally that outreach has been very important because that helps keep the quality up.

If you have that human face on the parts, it really motivates the entire team to, as Gus said, Do good work. But it puts a personal face on it and it makes it a lot more real to them in terms of what their role is. Of course, the part that theyre building today, which is this window panel, this very recognizable panel to many people because its the contour of the windows that you can see from the outside so its a very, very visible part. Of course, theyre building a lot of other parts, which are less visible but are just as important.

SFI: So you saw where the windows being worked on. Could you tell us about some of the other elements that you got a chance to review today?

Morin:This companys specialty is making very large, very complicated aluminum panels, which are these curved sections. And it starts out with a big slab of metal, in some cases, its as much as six inches thick. Some of the panels they showed us today weighed as much as seven tonsyou know, these big pieces of metaland this company has this process where they remove a lot of that metal.

In other words, you might end up starting with [a] 5,000-pound piece of aluminum, and after youve removed all of the metal, when youre done, the part might only weigh 300 pounds. So its a very subtractive process. What they do is they both remove metal, but then they also have to shape it and bend it in a very precise way back and forth, so its real craftsmanship, a real art form to be able to do that. And this company actually does it better than anybody else. And these panels are very important.

In addition to this panel that is the structural member that holds the windows, so it has the cavities where the windows will be mounted, they also have panels for the tanks of the Space Launch System booster, which will be the largest rocket ever built. Thats the tanks that hold the liquid hydrogen.

Very similar process: they start with a large slab of aluminum, mill rectangular depressions in it so that they remove most of the weight but keep a lot of the strength, then they roll that into a section and then a number of those are welded together down in New Orleansthey actually finish the tank. So thats basically what we saw, basically aluminum plates that were very intricately machined and shaped to these conical and cylindrical sections that are later joined to form spacecraft.

SFI: Youve obviously had a lot of experience seeing a lot of this hardware produced. Could you provide our readers with some of the differences that youve noticed when youre looking at Orion compared to the stuff you saw produced for Shuttle and other programs?

Morin:One of the things thats important to realize is Orion has been a very evolutionary process in terms of the production of the components. The particular piece that we were looking at [had]originally consisted of 37 separate parts. The initial prototypes were built in that way. By building those prototypes and studying them, they found out how not only to remove thousands of pounds of metal (so it went from 4,000 to 2,000 pounds), they also went from 37 separate pieces to, I believe, its six pieces.

So now those six pieces can be welded together. And the process they did here with these parts [makes it] so that theyre much closer to final assembly, whereas the earlier partsthe companies here would make the parts and that part would require a lot more finishing or coatings and so forth would have to be done later.

The panel of Orions underlying structure for Exploration Mission-2 containing the spacecrafts windows is manufactured by AMRO Fabricating Corp., in South El Monte, California. Photo & Caption Credit: NASA

Lockheeds worked with its suppliers to optimize the part in terms of complexity and manufacturability and optimize the part to have more of the process done further up the supply chain, and very importantly, to minimize the weight. So the part does the same job, but it takes only half as much weight, which is so important when youre talking about these deep-space missions because the energy to get something to the Moon and back [makes weight] critical. If you can save some weight, you really got a lot of leverage out of that.

Its an incremental use of a lot of modern machining methods, which are very intensively computer-based, and lots of new materials, and lots of incremental improvements where each little improvement doesnt seem like that big a deal in itself, but when you put dozens and hundreds of them together, it really adds up to a really significant advance in these components.

SFI: If theres one thing that your experiences todaychecking out the work thats being done on Orionhas most intrigued you or the public should be made most aware of, what would it be?

Morin:I think it was that the employees here presented me with a panel that they 3-D printed, which was a miniature (I think about 1:25 scale) model of the part that is on display in front of the auditorium here. The key point of that is that 3-D printing technology is infusing its way into every phase of manufacturing. Not that the panel itself is 3-D printed, but that more and more 3-D printing is being used as an aid to improve the design or to check parts for fit before you commit to a very costly part. Of course, were using 3-D printing a lot ourselves.

My role is building the cockpit of Orion. We do 3-D printing because we make working models of the display system that the crews interact with. We built a lot of those prototypes with 3-D printing. This is a company that machines metal, and they are using 3-D printing in a big way, and the employees presented this panel to me today, which is a great memento.

SFI: Lee, thank you for taking the time to speak with Spaceflight Insider today.

Morin: It was fun, thanks!

Morin spoke with the teams at AMRO Fabricating Corporation located in South El Monte, California. While there, he had the opportunity to review finished structural test article hardware panels. These had been arranged in order for each section of NASAs new super-heavy-lift rocketthe Space Launch System, or, as it is more commonly called, SLS. The SLS is the chosen launch vehicle that the space agency hopes will restore American independence of launching its astronauts into space when used in tandem with the Orion spacecraft, which is being produced by Lockheed Martin and Airbus.

As is the case with any major initiative, a number of companies and agencies have been tasked with the production of both the SLS and Orion. One of these partners is AMRO, which ishelping to build panels for SLS core stage, the rockets launch vehicle stage adapter (LVSA) and the Orion spacecraft.

Companies and agencies are made up of people, and people are aided in their efforts when they are inspired. NASA astronauts, perhaps better than any other agency official, help to get the word out to those manufacturing these vehicles as to how important their work is, considering that these astronauts are planning on one day using what those firmsproduce to get NASA back into the business of crewed space exploration.

Tagged: AMRO Fabricating Facility Lead Stories Lee Morin Orion Space Launch System

Jason Rhian spent several years honing his skills with internships at NASA, the National Space Society and other organizations. He has provided content for outlets such as: Aviation Week & Space Technology, Space.com, The Mars Society and Universe Today.

Continue reading here:

Orion update: Lighting the fire of awareness Part 2 - SpaceFlight Insider