DOCSLIB.ORG

Architecture for Astronauts: an Activity-Based Approach (Springer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Architecture for Astronauts: an Activity-Based Approach (Springer W Sandra Häuplik-Meusburger Architecture for Astronauts An Activity-based Approach SpringerWienNewYork Dr.-Ing. DI Arch.SBA Sandra Häuplik-Meusburger Institute for Architecture and Design, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria This work is subject to copyright. Concept by the author All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part Layout: studio d*luxe, 1150 Vienna, Austria of the material is concerned, specifically those Printing: Strauss GmbH, of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, 69509 Mörlenbach, Germany broadcasting, reproduction by photocopying machines or similar means, and storage in data Cover illustration: CUPOLA VIEW, banks. L. Cahora Bassa, Zimbabwe (ISS023-E-32759). Image taken by the ISS Expedition 23 Crew. Product Liability: The publisher can give no Image courtesy of the Image Science & Analysis guarantee for all the information contained in this Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center book. This does also refer to information about The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth, drug dosage and application thereof. In every http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov. Cover line drawings by individual case the respective user must check the author its accuracy by consulting other pharmaceutical literature. Printed on acid-free and chlorine-free bleached paper The use of registered names, trademarks, etc. SPIN: 80022673 in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names With 250 (partly coloured) Figures are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Library of Congress Control Number: 2011924551 © 2011 Springer-Verlag/Wien Printed in Germany ISBN 978-3-7091-0666-2 SpringerWienNewYork SpringerWienNewYork is part of Springer Science+Business Media springer.at IV ABSTRACT This book is the result of researching the interface between people, space and objects in an extra- terrestrial environment. The first part of this book introduces all relevant American and Russian realized extra-terrestrial habitats: The Apollo Spacecraft and Lunar Module, the Space Shuttle Orbiter, and the Space Stations; Salyut, Skylab, Mir, as well as the International Space Station. It provides an overview of the architecture and configuration, highlights specific issues concerning the interior layout and compares the spatial and time alloca- tion of human activities. Drawings and diagrams facilitate comparison. The main part of the book concentrates on the investigation of the relationship between the envi- ronment and its users. This method evaluates and summarizes all the selected habitats by means of the human activities in relation to the character- istics of the built environment: Sleep, Hygiene, Food, Work and Leisure. In addition to analyz- ing the available data, it integrates the astronauts’ personal experiences into the evaluation. The author conducted structured interviews with nine astronauts with a special focus on human activity. The book confronts the findings from relevant literature and analysis - based on crew transcripts, spacecraft drawings and mission images - with the personal experiences of the users: the astronauts and cosmonauts. To facilitate orientation and to ease comparison with architectural drawings and diagrams each category was assigned a specific colour. Design directions for each category conclude each chapter. V CONTENTS Foreword by Richard Horden...........................VIII 4 Human Activity SLEEP Author’s Preface ............................................... X 4.1 Apollo ...................................................... 98 Acknowledgements..........................................XII 4.2 Salyut .....................................................100 4.3 Skylab ....................................................102 1 Introduction 4.4 Space Shuttle .........................................104 1.1 The Quest for Habitability........................... 2 4.5 Mir..........................................................106 1.2 Research Methodology............................... 4 4.6 ISS .........................................................108 1.3 Structure of the Book................................10 4.7 Summary Observation............................. 110 1.4 References ...............................................12 4.8 Comparison: Usability Matrix................... 118 4.9 Comparison: Livability Matrix ..................120 2 Background 4.10 Comparison: Flexibility Matrix .................12 2 2.1 The Environment .......................................16 4.11 Design Directions....................................124 2.2 The Users ................................................ 22 4.12 References .............................................126 2.3 Consequences for Design ........................ 26 2.4 References .............................................. 30 5 Human Activity HYGIENE 5.1 Apollo.....................................................132 3 Characteristics of 5.2 Salyut .....................................................140 Extra-terrestrial Habitats 5.3 Skylab ....................................................148 3.1 Overview ................................................. 34 5.4 Space Shuttle .........................................15 8 3.2 Apollo Spacecraft .................................... 36 5.5 Mir..........................................................16 4 3.3 Salyut Space Station................................ 44 5.6 ISS .........................................................17 2 3.4 Skylab Space Station ............................... 52 5.7 Summary Observation.............................178 3.5 Space Shuttle .......................................... 60 5.8 Comparison: Usability Matrix...................188 3.6 Mir Space Station .................................... 68 5.9 Comparison: Livability Matrix ..................190 3.7 International Space Station...................... 76 5.10 Comparison: Flexibility Matrix .................192 3.8 Summary ................................................. 86 5.11 Design Directions....................................194 3.8.1 Architectural Concept: Comparison..... 88 5.12 References .............................................196 3.8.2 Interior Layout: Comparison................ 90 3.8.3 Allocation Activities: Comparison........ 92 6 Human Activity FOOD 3.9 References .............................................. 94 6.1 Apollo.................................................... 202 6.2 Salyut .................................................... 206 6.3 Skylab ................................................... 208 6.4 Space Shuttle .........................................210 6.5 Mir.......................................................... 212 6.6 ISS ......................................................... 214 6.7 Summary Observation............................. 216 6.8 Comparison: Usability Matrix.................. 220 6.9 Comparison: Livability Matrix ................. 222 6.10 Comparison: Flexibility Matrix ................ 224 6.11 Design Directions................................... 226 6.12 References ............................................ 228 VI 7 Human Activity WORK 9 Appendix 7.1 Apollo.................................................... 232 A1 Acronyms and Abbreviations.................. 296 7.2 Salyut .................................................... 234 A2 Apollo Spacecraft: Facts ........................ 298 7.3 Skylab ................................................... 236 Apollo Missions 7.4 Space Shuttle ........................................ 238 Apollo Architecture 7.5 Mir......................................................... 240 A3 Salyut Space Station: Facts.................... 300 7.6 ISS ........................................................ 242 Salyut Missions 7.7 Summary Observation............................ 244 Salyut Architecture 7.8 Comparison: Usability Matrix.................. 252 A4 Skylab Space Station: Facts................... 302 7.9 Comparison: Livability Matrix ................. 254 Skylab Missions 7.10 Comparison: Flexibility Matrix ................ 256 Skylab Architecture 7.11 Design Directions................................... 258 A5 Space Shuttle: Facts.............................. 304 7.12 References ............................................ 260 Shuttle Missions Shuttle Architecture 8 Human Activity LEISURE A6 Mir Space Station: Facts........................ 306 8.1 Apollo.................................................... 264 Mir Missions 8.2 Salyut .................................................... 266 Mir Architecture 8.3 Skylab ................................................... 268 A7 International Space Station: Facts.......... 308 8.4 Space Shuttle ........................................ 270 ISS Missions 8.5 Mir......................................................... 272 ISS Architecture 8.6 ISS .........................................................274 A8 References ............................................. 312 8.7 Summary Observation............................ 276 8.8 Comparison: Usability Matrix.................. 282 Index ............................................................. 314 8.9 Comparison: Livability Matrix ................. 284 8.10 Comparison: Flexibility Matrix ................ 286 8.11 Design Directions................................... 288 8.12 References ............................................ 290 VII FOREWORD A good test for a book is always how much you comments for ‘leisure’ or ‘hygiene’ etc
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2016/17 Trinity Hall
    A year in the life of the Trinity Hall community 2016/17 Trinity Hall Academic Year 2016/17 2016/17 2 Trinity Hall Reports from our Officers Hello and welcome to the Trinity Hall Review 2016/17, looking back on an exciting academic year for the College community. Major milestones this year include a number of events and projects marking 40 years since the admission of women to Trinity Hall, the completion of WYNG Gardens and the acquisition of a new portrait and a new tapestry, both currently on display in the Dining Hall. We hope you enjoy reading the Review and on behalf of everyone at Trinity Hall, thank you for your continued and generous support. Kathryn Greaves Alumni Communications Officer Stay in touch with the College network: 30 TrinityHallCamb Alumni News inside Reports from our Officers 2 The Master 2 The Bursar 4 The Senior Tutor 7 The Graduate Tutor 8 The Admissions Tutor 10 The Dean 11 The Development Director 12 The Junior Bursar 14 The Head of Conference and Catering Services 15 The Librarian 16 The Director of Music 17 College News 18 The JCR President’s Report 20 The MCR President’s Report 21 Student Reports 22 Fellows’ News 24 Seminars and Lectures 26 Fundraising 28 18 Alumni News 30 THA Secretary’s Report 32 College News Alumni News 34 In Memoriam 36 2016/17 Information 38 List of Fellows 40 College Statistics 44 Fellows and Staff 48 List of Donors 50 Get involved 59 Thank you to all who have contributed to this edition of the Trinity Hall Review.
    [Show full text]
  • New Perspectives on Modern Wales
    New Perspectives on Modern Wales New Perspectives on Modern Wales: Studies in Welsh Language, Literature and Social Politics Edited by Sabine Asmus and Katarzyna Jaworska-Biskup New Perspectives on Modern Wales: Studies in Welsh Language, Literature and Social Politics Edited by Sabine Asmus and Katarzyna Jaworska-Biskup Reviewer: Prof. dr. Eduard Werner This book first published 2019 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2019 by Sabine Asmus, Katarzyna Jaworska-Biskup and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-2191-5 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-2191-9 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................. 3 Welsh or British in Times of Trouble? Shaping Welsh Culture and Identity during the Second World War Martin Andrew Hanks CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................... 31 Local or National? Gender, Place and Identity in Post-Devolution Wales’ Literature Rhiannon Heledd Williams CHAPTER THREE
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT of INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION in Re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMEN
    USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 1 of 354 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) Case No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM In re FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE ) (MDL 1700) SYSTEM, INC., EMPLOYMENT ) PRACTICES LITIGATION ) ) ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Carlene Craig, et. al. v. FedEx Case No. 3:05-cv-530 RLM ) Ground Package Systems, Inc., ) ) PROPOSED FINAL APPROVAL ORDER This matter came before the Court for hearing on March 11, 2019, to consider final approval of the proposed ERISA Class Action Settlement reached by and between Plaintiffs Leo Rittenhouse, Jeff Bramlage, Lawrence Liable, Kent Whistler, Mike Moore, Keith Berry, Matthew Cook, Heidi Law, Sylvia O’Brien, Neal Bergkamp, and Dominic Lupo1 (collectively, “the Named Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the Certified Class, and Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (“FXG”) (collectively, “the Parties”), the terms of which Settlement are set forth in the Class Action Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Declaration of Co-Lead Counsel in support of Preliminary Approval of the Kansas Class Action 1 Carlene Craig withdrew as a Named Plaintiff on November 29, 2006. See MDL Doc. No. 409. Named Plaintiffs Ronald Perry and Alan Pacheco are not movants for final approval and filed an objection [MDL Doc. Nos. 3251/3261]. USDC IN/ND case 3:05-md-00527-RLM-MGG document 3279 filed 03/22/19 page 2 of 354 Settlement [MDL Doc. No. 3154-1]. Also before the Court is ERISA Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees and for Payment of Service Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, filed with the Court on October 19, 2018 [MDL Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • HOGAN-THESIS-2019.Pdf (2.824Mb)
    EVALUATION OF FLIGHT CONTROL TECHNIQUES USING VIRTUAL REALITY IN AN ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY ROTATING ENVIRONMENT A Thesis by ROBERT DALLAS HOGAN Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Chair of Committee, Gregory Chamitoff Committee Members, Nancy Currie-Gregg Kristi Shryock Head of Department, Rodney Bowersox August 2019 Major Subject: Aerospace Engineering Copyright 2019 Robert Dallas Hogan ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to develop a collaborative virtual reality (VR) engineering platform for space system and mission design and to demonstrate its utility in the context of evaluating human interfaces for future control systems. Much of the work for this project was the development of the platform itself (called SpaceCRAFT). Additionally, a user study was done with 33 subjects to examine the potential advantages of designing and testing systems in virtual environments that otherwise may be difficult to replicate on Earth. The task evaluated was flying a drone in a rotating artificial gravity environment, which involves numerous unfamiliar forces. Different control strategies were tested using VR in comparison to flat screen interfaces. This particular challenge was chosen to emphasize the difference between immersive and non-immersive environments, and the results demonstrate that VR is a promising tool for human-interface system design and evaluation. The 50-meter radius space station simulated an open-air, long-term habitable environment and was designed with considerations of human factors for rotating reference frames. A quadrotor control model was developed and simulated a variety of stabilization and sensitivity modes.
    [Show full text]
  • AFA National Report [email protected] by Frances Mckenney, Assistant Managing Editor
    AFA National Report [email protected] By Frances McKenney, Assistant Managing Editor Driving to Ellensburg Heading out from his home, east of Spokane, Wash., Inland Empire Chapter President William P. Moore thought about putting his 1998 Bonneville sedan in cruise control. He had a long drive ahead on Interstate 90. Moore and Chapter Membership Director Ray Ortega Aldrich Photo by Linda S. set off on a three-hour road trip in May to present an Air Force Association AFROTC Medal to cadet Vyacheslav O. Ulanovskiy at Central Washington University in Ellensburg. To get there, Moore would put some 180 miles, one way, on the odometer—basically three-quarters of the way across Washington state. He’s been making this drive annually for the past six or seven years. “I know every rest stop,” he joked. The scenery “all looks the same,” he said, especially be- cause this year, a dry spring had begun to turn the roadside fields of wheat, potatoes, alfalfa, corn, and onions a uniform brown early in the season. Moore explained that he makes this trip because the school’s officials offer tremendous support. University Presi- dent James L. Gaudino is an Air Force Academy graduate and served with USAF in California, Turkey, and Germany. The AFROTC Det. 895 staff always express their apprecia- Former astronaut B. Alvin Drew (center) signs autographs at the tion for the AFA award, even though it’s just one of about Colorado State Awards Banquet, where he was guest speaker. two dozen presented in a ceremony that Moore said lasts Drew spent more than 612 hours in space in 2007 and 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Cal Poly Alum Gregory Chamitoff Scheduled to Reside on International Space Station in April
    Cal Poly Alumnus Headed for Space Station Mission http://www.calpolynews.calpoly.edu/news_releases/2008/January/ch... Skip to Content Search Cal Poly News News C a l i f o rn i a P o l y t e c h n i c S t a t e U n i v e rs i t y January 16, 2008 MEDIA ADVISORY Contact for media only: Amy Hewes 805-756-6402 [email protected] Cal Poly Alum Gregory Chamitoff Scheduled to Reside On International Space Station in April SAN LUIS OBISPO -- Cal Poly Alum Gregory Chamitoff will soon have quite a view out of the closest window. The 1984 Electrical Engineering graduate has been selected to work and live onboard the International Space Station, another remarkable step in what has proven to be an incredible professional career. Chamitoff will begin his journey in late April on Space Shuttle mission STS-124. He will stay on the ISS until September, returning back to earth with Shuttle mission STS-126. As an undergraduate student at Cal Poly, Chamitoff taught lab courses in circuit design and worked summer internships at Atari Computers and IBM. Chamitoff fondly remembers Cal Poly Mathematics Professor James Mueller, who he contacted recently about his upcoming Space Station trip. From Cal Poly, Chamitoff went on to earn master’s degrees from the California Institute of Technology and the University of Houston Clear Lake, and his Ph.D. in aeronautics and astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. While at MIT, Chamitoff worked on the Hubble Space Telescope, flight control upgrades for the Space Shuttle autopilot and the altitude control system for the Space Station.
    [Show full text]
  • Astronauts Improve Space Station 2 March 2011, by MARCIA DUNN , AP Aerospace Writer
    Spacewalk No. 2: Astronauts improve space station 2 March 2011, By MARCIA DUNN , AP Aerospace Writer away. Mission Control asked if spacewalker Stephen Bowen encountered any of the bits of ice, and he replied that he had not. Controllers wanted to keep any ammonia residue from getting into the space station. Drew was invigorated and working so fast that Mission Control cautioned him, barely an hour into the spacewalk, to slow down. He obliged as he carefully bagged the venting tool and then turned to other chores. In this image provided by NASA the International Space The two spacewalkers whittled down the to-do list, Station is photographed by an shuttle crew member on installing a rail car light and an outdoor robot's space shuttle Discovery as the shuttle approaches the camera. They also removed an experiment platform station during rendezvous and docking operations and some insulation. It was a hodgepodge of Saturday Feb. 26, 2011. There never have been so relatively minor jobs that will leave the orbiting lab many countries' vessels parked at the space station at in the best possible condition once space shuttles the same time, and it will never happen again given the stop flying. impending retirement of the shuttle fleet. (AP photo/NASA) They paused to snap pictures of NASA's launch site, as the shuttle-station complex sailed 220 miles above Cape Canaveral. (AP) -- Discovery's astronauts took one final spacewalk at the International Space Station on Overseeing the action from Mission Control was Wednesday to get the outpost squared away astronaut Timothy Kopra.
    [Show full text]
  • Christa's Lost Lessons
    Christa’s Lost Lessons Lost Lesson 1 Christa’s name for her mission: THE ULTIMATE FIELD TRIP (video link) Introduction: Besides the six lost science lessons scheduled for filming aboard Challenger, two televised “live lessons” were planned for the sixth day of the mission. The time scheduled for each was fifteen minutes. These were to be aired on the Public Broadcasting Network (PBS) at 10:40 a.m. and 10:40 p.m. Central Standard Time. The first lesson (actually given its name by Christa) was “The Ultimate Field Trip”. It dealt with explaining and describing to students the general layout of the shuttle. Additionally, crew members (Commander Dick Scobee, Pilot Mike Smith and others) would be introduced. The video archives contained this wonderful clip of Christa actually “walking through” a practice run of both live lessons. Christa’s Lost Lessons - Lost Lesson 1 The second live lesson is addressed in some detail in Bob Mayfield’s paper. It was entitled “Where We’ve Been, Where We’ve Going” Background: The background description for the first live lesson, “The Ultimate Field Trip”, comes from the NASA publication “Teacher in Space Project.” It is stated below: “This lesson is based on a quotation by Teacher in Space Christa McAuliffe who described her opportunity to go into space as ‘the ultimate field trip.’ Viewer Objectives: 1. To observe the major areas of the Shuttle and describe their function 2. To list and describe the major kinds of activities crewmembers perform aboard the Shuttle 3. To compare and contrast daily activities in microgravity with those on Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenger's Lost Lessons
    CHALLENGER’S LOST LESSONS Project Editor: Jerry Woodfill Content Originators: Bob Mayfield, Christa McAuliffe, Barbara Morgan and the STS-51L Teacher in Space Team (Project: Space Educators’ Handbook – OMB/NASA Report #S677) HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHER IN SPACE ACTIVITIES FLIGHT 51-L Bob Mayfield with bracketed comments by Jerry Woodfill 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background 3 Hardware Development for Lost Lessons 6 Challenger’s Lost Live Lessons 21 Editor’s Comments 23 The Lost Hydroponics Chamber Lesson 25 The Lost Magnetic Chamber Lesson 34 The Lost Newton’s Laws Lesson 49 The Lost Effervescence Lesson 59 The Lost Chromatography Lesson 63 The Lost Simple Machines Lesson 69 The First Lost Live Lesson ( Ultimate Field Trip ) 78 The Second Lost Live Lesson 84 Instructions on using the CDROM and DVD 97 3 CHALLENGER’S LOST LESSONS [Background: In 2007, the space shuttle mission STS-118 launched with Christa McAuliffe’s backup Teacher in Space candidate Barbara Morgan. Though more than a score of years after the loss of Challenger’s crew, STS-118 was a reminder of the morning of January 28, 1986. That week Christa McAuliffe planned to perform both live and filmed science lessons. These lost lessons, prepared for the nation and world’s school children, were never done. This project delves into those undone educational activities. Indeed, after studying its content, all will appreciate NASA’s, Christa’s and Barbara’s efforts as well as Bob Mayfield’s in carefully researching, preparing and training for the performance of the six “Challenger lost lessons.” Though lost in the sense that they perished with Challenger and her crew, recounting, redoing, and examining them is, in a sense, a resurrection.
    [Show full text]
  • EAC: the European Astronaut Centre
    EAC: The European Astronaut Centre Activities within the Single European Astronaut Corps G. Thiele participated as Mission Specialist in the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (STS-99), which carried out the three- dimensional mapping of most of the Earth’s land surface. Mission- preparation support for STS-100/ MPLM, with ESA Astronaut U. Guidoni, is being provided at Johnson Space Centre (JSC). An agreement with ASI on the co- operation related to this first mission by a European astronaut to the ISS is being prepared. Thomas Reiter received the ‘Space Award 2000’ from the Discovery Channel and the ‘Verein zur Förderung der Raumfahrt’ during the year. Claudie André-Deshays and Jean Pierre Haigneré received the ‘Ordre du Courage’ from the President of the Russian Federation. The foyer of the European Astronaut Centre (EAC) Preparations for Astronaut Activities during the ISS Era In September, the Multilateral Crew Operations Panel (MCOP) finalised the Charter and Disciplinary Policy for ISS Crew. The MCOP is the primary forum for the co-ordination and resolution of top-level ISS crew matters, including the certification, assignment and All 16 current members of the European Astronaut Corps, together at the 10th Anniversary of EAC, on 17 May 87 Dr. Ernst Messerschmid, Head of EAC, evaluation of ISS astronauts, as well as opening the Celebrations the policies for training and operations. The MCOP Charter, the Disciplinary Policy and the Crew Code of Conduct were subsequently approved by the ISS Multilateral Control Board (MCB) at its first meeting. As a result of the arrangements reached with DLR, CNES and ASI, 23 staff have been integrated into the European Astronaut Centre (EAC) to provide astronaut training, medical operations and astronaut support.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Spaceflight in Social Media: Promoting Space Exploration Through Twitter
    Human Spaceflight in Social Media: Promoting Space Exploration Through Twitter Pierre J. Bertrand,1 Savannah L. Niles,2 and Dava J. Newman1,3 turn back now would be to deny our history, our capabilities,’’ said James Michener.1 The aerospace industry has successfully 1 Man-Vehicle Laboratory, Department of Aeronautics and Astro- commercialized Earth applications for space technologies, but nautics; 2Media Lab, Department of Media Arts and Sciences; and 3 human space exploration seems to lack support from both fi- Department of Engineering Systems, Massachusetts Institute of nancial and human public interest perspectives. Space agencies Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. no longer enjoy the political support and public enthusiasm that historically drove the human spaceflight programs. If one uses ABSTRACT constant year dollars, the $16B National Aeronautics and While space-based technologies for Earth applications are flourish- Space Administration (NASA) budget dedicated for human ing, space exploration activities suffer from a lack of public aware- spaceflight in the Apollo era has fallen to $7.9B in 2014, of ness as well as decreasing budgets. However, space exploration which 41% is dedicated to operations covering the Internati- benefits are numerous and include significant science, technological onal Space Station (ISS), the Space Launch System (SLS) and development, socioeconomic benefits, education, and leadership Orion, and commercial crew programs.2 The European Space contributions. Recent robotic exploration missions have
    [Show full text]
  • Spaceport News America's Gateway to the Universe
    MissionUpdate Vol. 36, No. 17 August 29, 1997 Shuttle-Mir Spaceport News America's gateway to the universe. Leading the world in preparing and launching missions to Earth and beyond. John F. Kennedy Space Center Internal EVA conducted: Mir 24 cosmonauts Anatoly Solovyev and Pavel Vinogradov and U.S. astronaut Michael Foale continue the process of verifying restoration of electrical power to the Russian Busy week at Space Station Mir after an intravehicular activity Aug. 22. Troubleshooting of the oxygen- generating system also was under America’s way, and an extravehicular activity was tentatively set for the first week of September to conduct an spaceport inspection of leak sites on the damaged Spektr module. STS-86 ONE Shuttle rolled out to the launch pad Aug. 18 and another returned to KSC the following day. The Space Shuttle Atlantis (above) is now at Pad 39A, undergoing final preparations for launch Sept. 25 on the seventh Shuttle-Mir docking mission, STS-86. The Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test is scheduled for Sept. 9- Atlantis (20th flight OV-104) 10. At about 7:08 a.m., Aug. 19, Discovery (right) 87th Shuttle flight touched down on Runway 33 of KSC's Shuttle Landing Pad 39A Facility, bringing Mission STS-85 to a successful 7th Mir Docking conclusion. Researchers were delighted with the Launch: Sept. 25, 10:34 p.m. performance of the primary scientific instruments flown Crew: Wetherbee; Bloomfield; on the 86th Shuttle flight, the Cryogenic Infrared Parazynski; Titov; Chretien Spectrometers and Telescopes for the Atmosphere (France); Lawrence; Wolf. (CRISTA)-SPAS and the Middle Atmosphere High Commander Wetherbee flew on Resolution Spectrograph Investigation (MAHRSI), both of STS-63, the Shuttle flight that which performed flawlessly.
    [Show full text]