Station Crew Wraps up Spacewalk 19 August 2005

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

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. Source: NASA 1 / 2 APA citation: Station Crew Wraps Up Spacewalk (2005, August 19) retrieved 25 September 2021 from https://phys.org/news/2005-08-station-crew-spacewalk.html This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. 2 / 2 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org).

Copy Link

Recommended publications

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]
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]
List of Russian Space Launch Vehicle Failures Since Dec. 2010
Fact Sheet Updated March 25, 2019 LIST OF RUSSIAN SPACE LAUNCH FAILURES SINCE DEC. 2010 Russia’s once reliable fleet of space launch vehicles began a string of failures beginning in December 2010 that has created significant consternation in Russia’s space program and brought about firings and reorganizations, but the failures continue. Following is a list, with links to SpacePolicyOnline.com articles where available. • December 2010, Proton-Block DM, upper stage failure, three Russian GLONASS navigation satellites lost • February 2011, GEO-IK2, Rokot-Briz, upper stage failure, Russian geodetic satellite stranded in transfer orbit • August 2011, Ekspress AM-4, Proton-Briz, upper stage failure, Russian communications satellite stranded in transfer orbit • August 2011, Progress M-12M (called Progress 44 by NASA), Soyuz U-Fregat, third stage failure due to clogged fuel line, Russian cargo spacecraft for International Space Station lost • November 2011, Phobos-Grunt, Zenit-Fregat, upper stage failure, Russian Mars-bound spacecraft stranded in Earth orbit • December 2011, Soyuz 2.1a, third stage failure, Russian Meridian military communication satellite lost • August 2012, Proton-Briz, upper stage failure, Russian Ekspress-MD2 and Indonesian Telkom-3 communications satellites stranded in transfer orbit • December 2012, Proton-Briz, upper stage failure, Russian Yamal 402 communications satellite delivered to wrong orbit. • January 2013, Rokot-Briz KM, upper stage failure. Three Russian Strela military communications satellites incorrectly placed
[Show full text]
Contributions of the International Space Station Towards Future Exploration Missions
Acta Astronautica 104 (2014) 552–557 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro Contributions of the International Space Station towards future exploration missions Johannes Weppler German Aerospace Center (DLR), Königswinterer Str. 522-524, 53227 Bonn, Germany article info abstract Article history: When the idea of a large space station in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) was conceived in the Received 24 January 2014 1980s, it was primarily planned as an orbiting laboratory for microgravity research. Some Received in revised form even thought of it as an industrial plant in space. Whereas the latter did not materialize 4 June 2014 because of various reasons, the former is absolutely true when you talk about the Accepted 13 June 2014 International Space Station (ISS). Since the transition to a six astronaut crew in 2009 and Available online 21 June 2014 the completion of its assembly in 2011, it has been intensively used as laboratory in a wide Keywords: field of scientific topics. Experiments conducted on ISS have yielded first class results in ISS biology, physiology, material science, basic physics, and many more. While its role as a Exploration laboratory in space is widely recognized, the awareness for its potential for preparing MPCV future exploration missions beyond LEO is just increasing. This paper provides informa- ESM Technology tion on how the ISS programme contributes to future exploration efforts, both manned and unmanned. It highlights the work that has been done or is currently underway in the fields of technology, operations, and science. Further potentials and future projects for exploration preparation are also shown.
[Show full text]
Commercial Space Transportation: 2011 Year in Review
Commercial Space Transportation: 2011 Year in Review COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION: 2011 YEAR IN REVIEW January 2012 HQ-121525.INDD 2011 Year in Review About the 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 web site at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/. Cover: Art by John Sloan (2012) 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. • i • Federal Aviation Administration / Commercial Space Transportation CONTENTS Introduction . .1 Executive Summary . .2 2011 Launch Activity . .3 WORLDWIDE ORBITAL LAUNCH ACTIVITY . 3 Worldwide Launch Revenues . 5 Worldwide Orbital Payload Summary . 5 Commercial Launch Payload Summaries . 6 Non-Commercial Launch Payload Summaries . 7 U .S . AND FAA-LICENSED ORBITAL LAUNCH ACTIVITY . 9 FAA-Licensed Orbital Launch Summary . 9 U .S . and FAA-Licensed Orbital Launch Activity in Detail .
[Show full text]
ISS Systems Engineering Case Study
International Space Station Systems Engineering Case Study Dr. Bill Stockman InternationalJoe SpaceBoyle Station Systems EngineeringDr. John Bacon Case Study Air Force Center for Systems Engineering Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The views expressed in this Case Study are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of NASA, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. FOREWORD One of the objectives of the Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFCSE) is to develop case studies focusing on the application of systems engineering principles within various aerospace programs. The intent of these case studies is to examine a broad spectrum of program types and a variety of learning principles using the Friedman-Sage Framework to guide overall analysis. In addition to this case, the following studies are available at the AFCSE website. ■ Global Positioning System (space system) ■ Hubble Telescope (space system) ■ Theater Battle Management Core System (complex software development) ■ F-111 Fighter (joint program with significant involvement by the Office of the Secretary of Defense) ■ C-5 Cargo Airlifter (very large, complex aircraft) ■ A-10 Warthog (ground attack) ■ Global Hawk ■ KC-135 Simulator These cases support practitioners of systems engineering and are also used in the academic instruction in systems engineering within military service academies and at both civilian and military graduate schools. Each of the case studies comprises elements of success as well as examples of systems engineering decisions that, in hindsight, were not optimal. Both types of examples are useful for learning. Plans exist for future case studies focusing on various space systems, additional aircraft programs, munitions programs, joint service programs, logistics-led programs, science and technology/laboratory efforts, and a variety of commercial systems.
[Show full text]
Assessing Russia's Space Cooperation with China And
ASSESSING RUSSIA’S SPACE COOPERATION WITH CHINA AND INDIA Opportunities and Challenges for Europe Report 12, June 2008 Charlotte MATHIEU, ESPI DISCLAIMER This Report has been prepared for the client in accordance with the associated contract and ESPI will accept no liability for any losses or damages arising out of the provision of the report to third parties. Short Title: ESPI Report 12, June 2008 Editor, Publisher: ESPI European Space Policy Institute A-1030 Vienna, Schwarzenbergplatz 6 Austria http://www.espi.or.at Tel.: +43 1 718 11 18 - 0 Fax - 99 Copyright: © ESPI, June 2008 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 “source: © ESPI Report 12, June 2008. All rights reserved” and sample transmission to ESPI before publishing. Price: 11,00 EUR Printed by ESA/ESTEC Layout and Design: M. A. Jakob/ESPI and Panthera.cc Ref.: C/20490-003-P13 Report 12, June 2008 2 Russia’s Space Cooperation with China and India Assessing Russia’s Space Cooperation with China and India – Opportunities and Challenges for Europe Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………….. 5 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………….... 8 1. Russia in 2008.................................................................................................... 9 1.1. A stronger economy……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 1.2. An economy very dependent on the energy sector…………………………………………………… 10 1.3. Political stability…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 12 1.4. A new posture and the evolution towards a more balanced foreign policy……………… 12 2. Russia and Space……………………………………………………………………………………… 14 2.1. Space as a strategic asset…………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 2.2.
[Show full text]
Film Production and Co-Production in Russia, and the Export of Russian Films Abroad
A publication by the European Audiovisual Observatory FILM PRODUCTION AND CO-PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA, AND THE EXPORT OF RUSSIAN FILMS ABROAD September 2016 Director of Publication: Press and Public Relations: Susanne Nikoltchev, Executive Director Alison Hindhaugh, [email protected] Editors: Publisher: Julio Talavera Milla, Gilles Fontaine, Depart- European Audiovisual Observatory ment for Information on Markets and Financ- 76, Allée de la Robertsau, 67000 Strasbourg, ing, European Audiovisual Observatory France www.obs.coe.int Chief Editor: Tel.: +33 (0)3 90 21 60 00 Xenia Leontyeva Fax: +33 (0)3 90 21 60 19 Section Authors: Chapter 1: Xenia Leontyeva Please quote this publication as Chapter 2, Sections 1–2: Julia Trifonova, “Film Production and Co-Production in Russia, Alexander Luzhin, Xenia Leontyeva and the Export of Russian Films Abroad” Chapter 2, Sections 3–4: Xenia Leontyeva, Tatyana Gorskaya, Valeriy Kustov © European Audiovisual Observatory (Council Chapter 3: Victoria Ivanova, of Europe), Strasbourg, 2016 Xenia Leontyeva Opinions expressed in this publication are Translation and proof-reading: personal and do not necessarily represent the Eclectic Translations views of the Observatory, its members, or the Council of Europe. Layout: Irina Shmidt A publication by the European Audiovisual Observatory FILM PRODUCTION AND CO-PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA, AND THE EXPORT OF RUSSIAN FILMS ABROAD September 2016 European Audiovisual Observatory Council of Europe Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 INTRODUCTION 12 1. FILM PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 14 1.1. Legislative changes introduced in 2015−2016 14 1.2. Proposed legislation 17 2. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH 20 2.1. Film production in Russia 20 2.1.1.
[Show full text]
ISS L.A.B.S. Educator Resource Guide International Space Station Learning, Achieving, Believing, and Succeeding
National Aeronautics and Space Administration ISS L.A.B.S. Educator Resource Guide International Space Station Learning, Achieving, Believing, and Succeeding NASA International Space Station L.A.B.S. The International Space Station (ISS) is the unique blend of unified and diversified goals among the world‘s space agencies that will lead to improvements in life on Earth for all people of all nations. While the various space agency partners may emphasize different aspects of research to achieve their goals in the use of the ISS, they are unified in several important overarching goals. All of the agencies recognize the importance of leveraging the ISS as an education platform to encourage and motivate today‘s youth to pursue careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM): educating the children of today to be the leaders and space explorers of tomorrow. Advancing our knowledge in the areas of human physiology, biology, and material and physical sciences and translating that knowledge to health, socioeconomic, and environmental benefits on Earth is another common goal of the agencies: returning the knowledge gained in space research for the benefit of society. Finally, all the agencies are unified in their goals to apply knowledge gained through ISS research in human physiology, radiation, materials science, engineering, biology, fluid physics, and technology: enabling future space exploration missions. *Information provided courtesy of Reference Guide to the International Space Station, Assembly Complete Edition, November 2010.
[Show full text]
25 Years of Small Satellites
SSC11-III-1 25 Years of Small Satellites Siegfried W. Janson The Aerospace Corporation Mail Stop M2/241, P.O. Box 92957, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957; 310.379.7060 [email protected] ABSTRACT Twenty-five years ago in 1986, 25 microsatellites were launched into orbit; 24 were military communications satellites lofted by the former Soviet Union as part of a communications constellation. No active nanosatellites or picosatellites were launched that year. Last year (2010), 4 microsatellites, 15 nanosatellites, and 3 picosatellites were launched. Small spacecraft have gotten smaller, and they are being used for more than just communications. Advances in micro/nanoelectronics, microelectromechanical systems, solar cell technologies, global positioning systems, and the Internet have allowed small groups of individuals to design, build, and fly ever-smaller satellites with ever-increasing capabilities. In parallel, small satellite containment and deployment systems like the P-POD for CubeSats have been developed to minimize potential negative impacts on the host launch vehicle and primary payload, thus increasing the number of available launch opportunities. This work discusses small satellite launch trends, technology trends, satellite trends, and small satellite missions. 1.0 SMALL SATELLITES 25 YEARS AGO (1986) between 1970 and 1993. About 30 operational Like most years, 1986 had its ups and downs. Major satellites, at any given time, gave fairly complete Earth coverage using randomly distributed satellites within space-related events included Voyager 2 making its individual orbital planes. The Strela-1M satellites were first encounter with Uranus, the painful loss of seven preceded by Strela-1 experimental microsatellites astronauts onboard the U.S.
[Show full text]
Simplified Dynamic Model Generation and Vibration Analysis, of the International Space Station Mission 12A
Simplified Dynamic Model Generation and Vibration Analysis, of the International Space Station Mission 12A José J. Granda §, Louis Nguyen†, Montu Raval§ § California State University, Sacramento. Department of Mechanical Engineering Sacramento, California, 95819 † NASA Johnson Space Center Integrated Navigation, Guidance and Control Analysis Branch, Houston, TX 77058 ABSTRACT The use of computer models to predict the dynamic behavior of Space Vehicles is now a well accepted technique used to understand the natural frequencies and dynamic system responses of a complex flexible multibody system such as the International Space Station. Each new mission of the Space Shuttle after STS114, is destined to build the remaining of the International Space Station (ISS) and each new mission presents new challenges that need to be confronted during flight. One of those is the contingency plan for inspection, repair of the shuttle known as Orbiter Repair Maneuvers. The complete physical system needs to be modeled on a computer to understand the modes of vibration and to design a control system capable of controlling the proposed maneuvers. Building on the theoretical principles and procedures established in Granda, Nguyen1, the authors present the development of a computer model of ISS Mission 12A. As the station is built in space, here on earth, the authors build the components from scratch from generation of each component to assembly and dynamic analysis of ISS Mission12A configuration. The authors propose a simplified modeling technique compared to the actual methods currently in place at NASA and test their model with data from real flights. Such process and results are presented here using a technique that mixes solid modeling and dynamic finite element modeling.
[Show full text]