DOCSLIB.ORG

Design for On-Orbit Spacecraft Servicing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Design for On-Orbit Spacecraft Servicing DESIGN FOR ON-ORBIT SPACECRAFT SERVICING Stephen J. Leete NASA Goddard Space Flight Center ABSTRACT Servicing to date has been in low earth orbit from the space shuttle, and in the near future will also be based from the ISS. Future servicing should occur at much more energetic orbits, such as HEO, Earth-Moon L1, Sun-Earth L1 or L2. Mass for systems at these orbits will be at a high premium. These systems will also typically include large, highly flexible components (gossamer structures, sun shades, solar sails, solar arrays, mirrors) which can sustain only limited loads once deployed. However, the current EVA interface requirements and reference designs impose considerable mass and cost penalties on spacecraft design. This is partly because of high inadvertent EVA loads (kick loads, PFR ingress loads), and massive EVA-friendly connectors and mechanisms. A new generation of requirements and design solutions is needed to enable the designer of new systems to incorporate requirements related to servicing. An assessment of the current situation and a roadmap of the technology development needed to enable future ambitious serviceable systems is presented. HISTORY OF SERVICING The servicing of spacecraft on-orbit has been one of the highlights of the space activities. The three major categories of this are servicing of space stations, such as Skylab, Salyut, Mir, and the International Space Station (ISS), engineering development of servicing capabilities, and servicing of robotic spacecraft. These activities are summarized in Table 1, History of Extravehicular Activities, and have been taken from an excellent book by Portree and Treviño for all activities up to April, 1997 [Ref 1], and various NASA web sites for the time period after that [Ref 2]. Vehicle Year(s) Activities, Accomplishments Voskhod 1965 First EVA Gemini 1965-1966 10 EVAs, 1st successful EVA, demonstration of EVA tasks Soyuz 1969 Crew transfer Apollo 1969-1972 Crew transfer, lunar surface exploration & repairs, Apollo 13 safe return Skylab 1973-1974 Deploy sunshades & solar array, repair & service science instruments Salyut 1977-1986 Install solar arrays, remove 10-m antenna, repair propellant system leak, demonstrate welding tool, erect trusses, maintain science experiments. Space Shuttle 1983 Demonstrate MMU, MFR on RMS, hydrazine transfer. Space Shuttle 1984 Solar Max Mission recovery and repair, Palapa-B and WESTAR-IV recovery and return to Earth. Space Shuttle 1985 Retrieve and repair, release Leasat-3/SYNCOM-IV satellite; test EASE & ACCESS truss assembly. Space Shuttle 1986 Challenger disaster Mir 1987-1982 Repair various Mir hardware, repair and install solar arrays, reconfigure Mir modules, install Strela boom, test Soviet MMU (SPK), install and tend science experiments, install new propulsion module. Space Shuttle 1991 Contingency GRO antenna deployment, tested EVA hardware Space Shuttle 1992 Retrieve Intelsat-VI, install new PKM & release; erect ASEM truss, test Crew Propulsive Device Page 1 of 12 Vehicle Year(s) Activities, Accomplishments Space Shuttle 1993 Gain general EVA experience, safe an appendage on EURECA payload for landing Space Shuttle 1993 Service HST (SM1): replace solar arrays, install WF/PC-2 & COSTAR with optical prescription corrections, gyros, magnetometers, and a 386 co-processor, reboost Mir 1993-1996 Install solar drive units, deploy Papana truss, extensive photography of Mir exterior, reconfigure modules, deploy and install solar arrays, install 2nd Strela boom, install and maintain science instruments, filmed a Pepsi commercial. American astronauts performed an EVA while docked to Mir. Space Shuttle 1994-1996 Test SAFR crew rescue device, improve suit performance in extreme cold, practiced various EVA tasks Mir 1997 Joint EVAs between cosmonaut and astronaut, test Orlan-M suits, inspect damage to Spektr due to severe impact in June, internal EVA to reconnect power cables from Spektr solar arrays Space Shuttle 1997 Service HST (SM2): install STIS and NICMOS axial instruments, replace FGS, install solid state recorder, replace reaction wheel, replace data interface unit, replace magnetometers, and unplanned installation of blanket patches ISS 1998 Joining of Unity and Zarya modules, first use of Space Vision System Space Shuttle 1999 Service HST (SM3A): replace gyros (3), computer, FGS, SSR/tape recorder, s-band transmitter, and install new outer blanket layers (2) Space Shuttle 1999 ORU Transfer Device and Russian Strela crane installation, Chandra deploy ISS 2000 Zvesda Module joins ISS, complete Strala and OTD installation, add Z-1 Truss & Pressurized Mating Adapter #3, re-locate S-Band Antenna, install Space to Ground Antenna, install EVA Tool Stowage Devices, Soyuz brings first expedition crew, added solar arrays (including EVA intervention to complete solar array deployment) ISS 2001 Destiny lab module installation (Curbeam sprayed with ammonia, cleaned with hydrazine brush), re-locate PMA-3 on Unity, install External Stowage Platform on Destiny, Space Station Remote Manipulator System installation, UHF antenna install/deploy, Joint Airlock Module installation using SSRMS, and install Russian Piers airlock. Table 1: History of Extravehicular Activities SPACE STATIONS If a satellite is to be serviced by humans, it must not present a hazard to those humans. It must not present unacceptable electrical hazards such as high-current connector mate/demate, thermal hazards such as extremely high or low touch temperatures, or cutting & entrapment hazards such as sharp edges that could cut a spacesuit or holes in which gloved fingers could get stuck. The spacecraft must not be a hazard when subjected to inadvertent EVA loads, also called bump or kick loads. There are provisions for allowing some hazards, as long as the crew will be adequately briefed and trained in avoiding them. This would then be mitigated by more care in other EVA accommodations, more detailed training, or other requirements on the servicer tools. However, the designer may decide to allow some or all of the satellite to be damaged to the point of loss of function. Page 2 of 12 For a space station, damage to the operation of the space hardware may also present a hazard to the occupants of the space station, so nearly all damage becomes hazardous either directly or indirectly. A space station is likely to be serviced many times over its life, sometimes on short notice, so having to brief a crew on so-called "no-touch" and "no-damage" zones can be overly risky and costly. The solution to this situation adopted for the ISS is to have a very low threshold of tolerance for potential hazards on ISS hardware, and to make the hardware very robust with regard to inadvertent astronaut damage. These practices are comparable to more mundane guidelines for ensuring safe work-sites on the ground, such as clear labels on chemicals, wearing steel-toed shoes and hardhats, etc. These choices make good sense for the ISS. Being in low earth orbit, launch costs to bring up major components are high but not unreasonable. Adding weight once that will increase the reliability, safety, ease of servicing, and other important characteristic at the cost per pound of the Space Shuttle or other Russian launch vehicle is a good decision. If servicing of the ISS is too time-consuming, costly, or dangerous, its entire mission is compromised - as was found to be the case for an earlier version of Space Station Freedom. [Ref 3, 4] SPACECRAFT SERVICING DESIGN - MMS This approach can also be taken with free-flyer satellites. They can be rugged, with many design decisions made to favor ease of servicing and simplicity. The satellites which exemplify this approach are the Multimission Modular Spacecraft (MMS) design. During the years prior to the Challenger disaster in 1986, NASA had a broad vision of satellite servicing to take place from the Space Shuttle or space station. This would be in just about any inclination low earth orbit. Even post-Challenger, the vision was that there would be space tugs (orbital maneuvering vehicles) that would bring high orbit spacecraft back down to STS orbits for servicing. For various reasons, this vision has not yet come to fruition. A graphic of the MMS design is shown in Figure 1. [Ref 5]. With the post-Challenger decision not to launch shuttles from the west coast, most of the Earth observing satellites which are in polar orbits, such as the Landsat series, were no longer candidates for servicing. The Solar Maximum Mission (SMM) launched in 1980, Landsat 4 and Landsat 5 launched in 1982 and 1984, the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) launched in 1991, and the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) launched in 1992. All of these were built for the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Additional missions using the MMS design may have been built for other users. The MMS design was for a system of serviceable and re-useable satellites and satellite components. This modular design was also intended to make satellite design, assembly (integration) and test faster and less expensive. It was the implementation of a vision of regular access to space, modular and interchangeable spacecraft components, easy integration of new technology, the establishment of design standards, and other concepts. Page 3 of 12 Figure 1. MMS Components The hope was that the design, construction and servicing of satellites could be made to resemble more the current situation with, to use a current analogy, personal computers. There are a large number of these in the field, strong demand for them being kept up to date with current technology (thus a rapid turn-over, frequent up-grades), and a multiplicity of providers of components and chassis. Vendors of systems manufacture some components themselves, and purchase the rest on the open market from vendors who manufacture to standards. There is intense competition at all levels (with the possible exception of the operating system software), and customers benefit from the resulting low prices. The benefits to NASA, as well as other purchasers of satellites such as industry and military, from having a similar set of circumstances would be large.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Space Sector Brochure
    SPACE SPACE REVOLUTIONIZING THE WAY TO SPACE SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGIES PROPULSION Moog provides components and subsystems for cold gas, chemical, and electric Moog is a proven leader in components, subsystems, and systems propulsion and designs, develops, and manufactures complete chemical propulsion for spacecraft of all sizes, from smallsats to GEO spacecraft. systems, including tanks, to accelerate the spacecraft for orbit-insertion, station Moog has been successfully providing spacecraft controls, in- keeping, or attitude control. Moog makes thrusters from <1N to 500N to support the space propulsion, and major subsystems for science, military, propulsion requirements for small to large spacecraft. and commercial operations for more than 60 years. AVIONICS Moog is a proven provider of high performance and reliable space-rated avionics hardware and software for command and data handling, power distribution, payload processing, memory, GPS receivers, motor controllers, and onboard computing. POWER SYSTEMS Moog leverages its proven spacecraft avionics and high-power control systems to supply hardware for telemetry, as well as solar array and battery power management and switching. Applications include bus line power to valves, motors, torque rods, and other end effectors. Moog has developed products for Power Management and Distribution (PMAD) Systems, such as high power DC converters, switching, and power stabilization. MECHANISMS Moog has produced spacecraft motion control products for more than 50 years, dating back to the historic Apollo and Pioneer programs. Today, we offer rotary, linear, and specialized mechanisms for spacecraft motion control needs. Moog is a world-class manufacturer of solar array drives, propulsion positioning gimbals, electric propulsion gimbals, antenna positioner mechanisms, docking and release mechanisms, and specialty payload positioners.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of European Commercial Spacecraft Manufacturing
    The Future of European Commercial Spacecraft Manufacturing Report 58 May 2016 Cenan Al-Ekabi Short title: ESPI Report 58 ISSN: 2218-0931 (print), 2076-6688 (online) Published in May 2016 Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute, ESPI Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel. +43 1 7181118-0; Fax -99 Rights reserved – No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose with- out permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “Source: ESPI Report 58; May 2016. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. ESPI is not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, product liability or otherwise) whether they may be direct or indirect, special, inciden- tal or consequential, resulting from the information contained in this publication. Design: Panthera.cc ESPI Report 58 2 May 2016 The Future of European Commercial Spacecraft Manufacturing Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Introduction – Research Question 7 1. The Global Satellite Manufacturing Landscape 9 1.1 Introduction 9 1.2 Satellites in Operation 9 1.3 Describing the Satellite Industry Market 10 1.4 The Satellite Industry Value Chain 12 1.4.1 Upstream Revenue by Segment 13 1.4.2 Downstream Revenue by Segment 14 1.5 The Different Actors 15 1.5.1 Government as the Prominent Space Actor 15 1.5.2 Commercial Actors in Space 16 1.6 The Satellite Manufacturing Supply Chain 17 1.6.1 European Consolidation of the Spacecraft Manufacturing Industry 18 1.7 The Satellite Manufacturing Industry 19 1.7.1 The Six Prime Contractors 21 1.7.2 The Smaller Commercial Prime Contractors 23 1.7.3 Asian National Prime Contractors in the Commercial Market 23 1.7.4 European Prime Contractors’ Relative Position in the Global Industry 23 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Orbital Debris: a Chronology
    NASA/TP-1999-208856 January 1999 Orbital Debris: A Chronology David S. F. Portree Houston, Texas Joseph P. Loftus, Jr Lwldon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas David S. F. Portree is a freelance writer working in Houston_ Texas Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................ iv Preface ........................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... vii Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................ ix The Chronology ............................................................................................................. 1 1961 ......................................................................................................................... 4 1962 ......................................................................................................................... 5 963 ......................................................................................................................... 5 964 ......................................................................................................................... 6 965 ......................................................................................................................... 6 966 ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Securing Japan an Assessment of Japan´S Strategy for Space
    Full Report Securing Japan An assessment of Japan´s strategy for space Report: Title: “ESPI Report 74 - Securing Japan - Full Report” Published: July 2020 ISSN: 2218-0931 (print) • 2076-6688 (online) Editor and publisher: European Space Policy Institute (ESPI) Schwarzenbergplatz 6 • 1030 Vienna • Austria Phone: +43 1 718 11 18 -0 E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.espi.or.at Rights reserved - No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without permission from ESPI. Citations and extracts to be published by other means are subject to mentioning “ESPI Report 74 - Securing Japan - Full Report, July 2020. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. ESPI is not responsible for any losses, injury or damage caused to any person or property (including under contract, by negligence, product liability or otherwise) whether they may be direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential, resulting from the information contained in this publication. Design: copylot.at Cover page picture credit: European Space Agency (ESA) TABLE OF CONTENT 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background and rationales ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Methodology
    [Show full text]
  • The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017
    Federal Aviation Administration The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017 January 2017 Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017 i Contents About the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation The Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA AST) licenses and regulates U.S. commercial space launch and reentry activity, as well as the operation of non-federal launch and reentry sites, as authorized by Executive Order 12465 and Title 51 United States Code, Subtitle V, Chapter 509 (formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act). FAA AST’s mission is to ensure public health and safety and the safety of property while protecting the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry operations. In addition, FAA AST is directed to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries. Additional information concerning commercial space transportation can be found on FAA AST’s website: http://www.faa.gov/go/ast Cover art: Phil Smith, The Tauri Group (2017) Publication produced for FAA AST by The Tauri Group under contract. NOTICE Use of trade names or names of manufacturers in this document does not constitute an official endorsement of such products or manufacturers, either expressed or implied, by the Federal Aviation Administration. ii Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2017 GENERAL CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Introduction 5 Launch Vehicles 9 Launch and Reentry Sites 21 Payloads 35 2016 Launch Events 39 2017 Annual Commercial Space Transportation Forecast 45 Space Transportation Law and Policy 83 Appendices 89 Orbital Launch Vehicle Fact Sheets 100 iii Contents DETAILED CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .
    [Show full text]
  • Mir Principal Expedition 19 Commander Anatoly Solovyev Many International Elements
    Mir Mission Chronicle November 1994—August 1996 Mir Principal Expedition 19 Commander Anatoly Solovyev many international elements. The first Mir Flight Engineer Nikolai Budarin crew launched on a Space Shuttle Orbiter, Crew code name: Rodnik Solovyev and Budarin began their work in Launched in Atlantis (STS-71) June 27, 1995 conjunction with a visiting U.S. crew and Landed in Soyuz-TM 21, September 11, 1995 departing Mir 18 international crew. Two of 75 days in space their EVAs involved deployment and retrieval of international experiments. And they ended Highlights: The only complete Mir mission their stay by welcoming an incoming interna- of 1995 with an all-Russian crew, Mir 19 had tional crew. Mir 19 crew officially take charge. Solovyev and Budarin officially assumed their duties aboard Mir on June 29. The Mir 18 crew moved their quarters to Atlantis for the duration of the STS-71 mission. Once there, they would continue their investigations of the biomedical effects of long-term space habitation.77,78 June 29 - July 4, 1995 Triple cooperation. On June 30, the ten members of the Mir 18, Mir 19, and STS-71 crews assembled in the Spacelab on Atlantis for a ceremony during which they exchanged gifts and joined two halves of a pewter medallion engraved with likenesses of K2 their docked spacecraft. The crews began transferring fresh A supplies and equipment from Atlantis to Mir. They also moved T Kr Mir K TM L medical samples, equipment, and hardware from Mir to Atlantis Sp for return to Earth. New equipment included tools for an EVA to be performed by the cosmonauts to free the jammed Spektr solar array.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia Missile Chronology
    Russia Missile Chronology 2007-2000 NPO MASHINOSTROYENIYA | KBM | MAKEYEV DESIGN BUREAU | MITT | ZLATOUST MACHINE-BUILDING PLANT KHRUNICHEV | STRELA PRODUCTION ASSOCIATION | AAK PROGRESS | DMZ | NOVATOR | TsSKB-PROGRESS MKB RADUGA | ENERGOMASH | ISAYEV KB KHIMMASH | PLESETSK TEST SITE | SVOBODNYY COSMODROME 1999-1996 KRASNOYARSK MACHINE-BUILDING PLANT | MAKEYEV DESIGN BUREAU | MITT | AAK PROGRESS NOVATOR | SVOBODNYY COSMODROME Last update: March 2009 This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation 2007-2000: NPO MASHINOSTROYENIYA 28 August 2007 NPO MASHINOSTROYENIYA TO FORM CORPORATION NPO Mashinostroyeniya is set to form a vertically-integrated corporation, combining producers and designers of various supply and support elements. The new holding will absorb OAO Strela Production Association (PO Strela), OAO Permsky Zavod Mashinostroitel, OAO NPO Elektromekhaniki, OAO NII Elektromekhaniki, OAO Avangard, OAO Uralskiy NII Kompositsionnykh Materialov, and OAO Kontsern Granit-Elektron. While these entities have acted in coordination for some time, formation of the new corporation has yet to be finalized.
    [Show full text]
  • Closing Comments
    Closing Comments The concept of a Shuttle supporting the assembly of a space station was not an entirely new idea when Space Station Freedom was authorized in 1984. Such concepts had been evaluated during the late 1960s, as the United States and the Soviet Union competed in the race to the Moon. By the early 1970s, the two nations were on more friendly terms and keen to participate in a joint project as Apollo was being phased out and a series of Salyut space stations were being introduced. The American proposal for an Apollo to dock with a Salyut was rejected, as was a proposal to have a Soyuz dock with Skylab. So Apollo docked with Soyuz in the summer of 1975. That program was so successful that talks began almost immediately to assess the pros- pects for a Shuttle-Salyut docking in the early 1980s. In parallel, NASA devised plans for the Shuttle to reactivate Skylab. Neither of these proposals bore fruit. By the early 1980s, the idea of using a Shuttle to assemble and resupply a large space station remained, and would become the lynchpin of the Space Station Freedom before plans for that, too, were revised. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the assembly of Mir had been underway for several years. But Russia, which inherited the station and the spacecraft which serviced it, was hard pressed to continue the requisite funding. Looking back two decades to the 1990s, the merger of the American Shuttle and the Russian space station programs seems so logical, since they complemented each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Part 2 Almaz, Salyut, And
    Part 2 Almaz/Salyut/Mir largely concerned with assembly in 12, 1964, Chelomei called upon his Part 2 Earth orbit of a vehicle for circumlu- staff to develop a military station for Almaz, Salyut, nar flight, but also described a small two to three cosmonauts, with a station made up of independently design life of 1 to 2 years. They and Mir launched modules. Three cosmo- designed an integrated system: a nauts were to reach the station single-launch space station dubbed aboard a manned transport spacecraft Almaz (“diamond”) and a Transport called Siber (or Sever) (“north”), Logistics Spacecraft (Russian 2.1 Overview shown in figure 2-2. They would acronym TKS) for reaching it (see live in a habitation module and section 3.3). Chelomei’s three-stage Figure 2-1 is a space station family observe Earth from a “science- Proton booster would launch them tree depicting the evolutionary package” module. Korolev’s Vostok both. Almaz was to be equipped relationships described in this rocket (a converted ICBM) was with a crew capsule, radar remote- section. tapped to launch both Siber and the sensing apparatus for imaging the station modules. In 1965, Korolev Earth’s surface, cameras, two reentry 2.1.1 Early Concepts (1903, proposed a 90-ton space station to be capsules for returning data to Earth, 1962) launched by the N-1 rocket. It was and an antiaircraft cannon to defend to have had a docking module with against American attack.5 An ports for four Soyuz spacecraft.2, 3 interdepartmental commission The space station concept is very old approved the system in 1967.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Space Industrial Base 2020 Report
    STATE OF THE SPACE INDUSTRIAL BASE 2020 A Time for Action to Sustain US Economic & Military Leadership in Space Summary Report by: Brigadier General Steven J. Butow, Defense Innovation Unit Dr. Thomas Cooley, Air Force Research Laboratory Colonel Eric Felt, Air Force Research Laboratory Dr. Joel B. Mozer, United States Space Force July 2020 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. DISCLAIMER The views expressed in this report reflect those of the workshop attendees, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the US government, the Department of Defense, the US Air Force, or the US Space Force. Use of NASA photos in this report does not state or imply the endorsement by NASA or by any NASA employee of a commercial product, service, or activity. USSF-DIU-AFRL | July 2020 i ​ ​ ABOUT THE AUTHORS Brigadier General Steven J. Butow, USAF Colonel Eric Felt, USAF Brig. Gen. Butow is the Director of the Space Portfolio at Col. Felt is the Director of the Air Force Research the Defense Innovation Unit. Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate. Dr. Thomas Cooley Dr. Joel B. Mozer Dr. Cooley is the Chief Scientist of the Air Force Research Dr. Mozer is the Chief Scientist at the US Space Force. Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FROM THE EDITORS Dr. David A. Hardy & Peter Garretson The authors wish to express their deep gratitude and appreciation to New Space New Mexico for hosting the State of the Space Industrial Base 2020 Virtual Solutions Workshop; and to all the attendees, especially those from the commercial space sector, who spent valuable time under COVID-19 shelter-in-place restrictions contributing their observations and insights to each of the six working groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Space Stations: Base Camps to the Stars*
    Chapter 23 Space Stations: Base Camps to the Stars* Roger D. Launius† Introduction This paper reviews the history of space stations in American culture, from an 1869 work of fiction in the Atlantic Monthly to the present realization of the International Space Station (ISS). It also discusses the history of space stations “real and imagined” as cultural icons. From winged rocket ships, to the giant ro- tating wheels of Wernher von Braun and 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the epic, controversy-wracked saga of the ISS, the paper also discusses Mir, Skylab, and the Salyuts. It will close with a projection into the future as ISS is realized—or perhaps deferred—and perhaps future generations begin work on space stations elsewhere in the Solar System. The Attraction of a Space Station From virtually the beginning of the 20th century, those interested in the human exploration of space have viewed as central to that endeavor the building of a massive Earth-orbital space station that would serve as the jumping-off point to the Moon and the planets. Always, space exploration enthusiasts believed, a * Presented at the Thirty-Eighth History Symposium of the International Academy of As- tronautics, 4–8 October 2004, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Paper IAC-04-IAA.6.15.4.01. † Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 421 permanently occupied space station was a necessary outpost in the new frontier of space. The more technically minded recognized that once humans had achieved Earth orbit about 200 miles up, the presumed location of any space sta- tion, the vast majority of the atmosphere and the gravity well had been conquered and that people were now about halfway to anywhere they might want to go.
    [Show full text]
  • Station Crew Wraps up Spacewalk 19 August 2005
    Station Crew Wraps Up Spacewalk 19 August 2005 Expedition 11 Commander Sergei Krikalev and NASA Science Officer John Phillips closed the airlock hatch of the Pirs docking compartment at 8 p.m. EDT Thursday, ending a successful spacewalk on the International Space Station. Wearing Russian Orlan spacesuits, both with red stripes, the two had opened the Pirs hatch at 3:02 p.m. EDT. Total time for the spacewalk was 4 hours and 58 minutes. It was the eighth spacewalk for Krikalev, designated EV1, and the first for Phillips, EV2. The first task was to remove a Russian Biorisk experiment container housing bacteria from the outside of Pirs. Next they removed an MPAC and SEED panel from the large-diameter aft section of the Zvezda Service Module. MPAC is a micrometeoroid and orbital debris collector. SEED is a materials exposure array. Crewmembers then moved to the Matroska experiment, a torso-like container with radiation dosimeters in human-tissue-equivalent material. They removed it and later, with the MPAC and SEED panel, brought it back inside the Station. Krikalev and Phillips installed a spare television camera on Zvezda, then photographed and checked a Korma contamination-exposure experiment tablet on a handrail. That done, they removed a materials exposure experiment container and replaced it with a similar unit. One task was deferred because of the length of the spacewalk. That was to remove a grapple fixture for a Strela crane from the Zarya module and relocate it on Pressurized Mating Adaptor No. 3, attached to the Station's Unity node. That job will be done on a future spacewalk.
    [Show full text]