Operations with China's Tiangong-2

Home , Aleksey Ovchinin, Chen Dong (astronaut), Gaofen (satellite), Jing Haipeng, Kerim Kerimov, Kosmos 3 (rocket)

SPACE CHRONICLE A BRITISH INTERPLANETARY SOCIETY PUBLICATION

Vol. 72 No.2 2019 OPERATIONS WITH CHINA’S TIANGONG-2

Changing shift on the ISS

CHINA’S PATHFINDER ASTRONAUTS SOVIET METEOR SATELLITES

ISBN 978-0-9567382-2-6 APRIL 20191 Submitting papers to From the editor

SPACE CHRONICLE FOR THIS SECOND 2019 SUPPLEMENTARY ISSUE of Space Chronicle the four papers once again alternate between Chinese and Russian topics. Three Space Chronicle welcomes the submission papers are from presentations originally given at different Sino-Russian Technical for publication of technical articles of general Forums, while the fourth updates research conducted by its author 15 years ago, interest, historical contributions and reviews highlighting the requirement for on-going research even after publication or in space science and technology, astronautics presentation of the original material. and related fields. In the first paper Phil Clark reviews the demise of Tiangong-1, China’s first space GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS laboratory, before giving a detailed account of operations with Tiangong-2 which saw the inauguration of the unmanned cargo freighter Tianzhou and the CZ-7 ■ As concise as the content allows – launch vehicle. Tiangong-2 is believed to be the final step prior to assembling the typically 5,000 to 6,000 words. Shorter larger Tiangong modular space station and the much-anticipated launch of the papers will also be considered. Longer first element of that complex, known as Tianhe 1. papers will only be considered in exceptional circumstances and, at the In the second paper Bart Hendrickx returns to the Soviet era, updating his 2004 discretion of the Editor, may be split into research into the creation of the weather satellite programme known as Meteor. parts. Due to more prestigious projects taking precedence, more practical applications ■ Source references should be inserted in tended to proceed at a slower pace than their counterparts in the United States. the text in square brackets [X] and then Bart presents a fascinating insight into the early years of this largely overlooked listed at the end of the paper. programme during 1960s and 1970s and briefly reviews the more advanced types of weather satellites that replaced Meteor. ■ Illustration references should be cited in numerical order in the text as ‘Fig.X’; those The third paper is from Bert Vis, who expands on his earlier paper on the selection not cited in the text risk omission. of China’s astronauts that appeared in the last Chronicle supplement. In this issue ■ Captions must be labelled with their Fig. Bert recounts a chance meeting over 20 years ago at the Gagarin Cosmonaut number and should be as short as possible. Training near Moscow between British space enthusiast Neil Da Costa and two ■ Illustrations should be: Chinese astronauts who were undergoing basic Russian cosmonaut training. Having only recently selected its first group of space trainees, China sent the two – colour or mono, but should be as close pathfinders to Russia on a fast-tracked programme. The objective was to gather to print resolution (300 dpi) as possible. hands-on experience on how to prepare crews for spaceflight and to adapt the – poor-quality illustrations may lessons learned for the Shenzhou programme. Despite their training, neither of the compromise the acceptance of paper for two astronauts actually got to fly into space – which makes their chance meeting publication. with De Costa in Russia all the more more remarkable. – images embedded in Word documents may be acceptable, but the Editor reserves The final paper forms part of the guest editor’s research into recent Soyuz the right to request separate image files operations to the ISS and is also the result of finding discrepancies in recording from the author prior to publication. expedition crew assignments aboard the station. Since 2009, the nominal resident ■ Responsibility for copyright clearance crew on ISS has increased from three to six persons and features staggered rests entirely with the author. arrivals and departures by means of Soyuz. A discrepancy was found when ‘flight engineer’ number designations in these crew changes did not tally with official ■ Submission of papers for consideration NASA daily accounts. Further research discovered that the designations are long- should be sent by email to chronicle@ established administrative assignments and form part of the long-term planning bis.space.com as a Word document or documentation. Together with the exchange of older Soyuz spacecraft and the editable PDF file, along with any separate observation of long-held traditions aboard ISS as crews arrive and depart, these image files. academic assignments are important elements of the staggered crew rotation ■ If a paper is accepted for publication, the across multiple expeditions that has seen the ISS in continuous occupation for author will be asked to sign a License to nearly two decades. Publish form. This can be downloaded at www.bis-space.com/wp-content/ David J. Shayler FBIS uploads/2012/08/WebsiteLicense.pdf Guest Editor and Coordinator of the 2019 BIS Sino-Russian Technical Forum Authors will receive a complimentary copy of the issue in which their paper appears. Editor John Becklake Production MP3 Media Promotion Gill Norman Office BIS, Arthur C. We respectfully ask authors to adhere Clarke House, 27-29 South Lambeth Road, London, SW8 1SZ, UK to these guidelines. Failure to do so will Telephone +44 (0)20 7735 3160 Email [email protected] Website www.bis-space.com result in the delay of acceptable papers for Distribution Space Chronicle is distributed worldwide by mail and may be received by annual publication. subscription or purchase of single copies. It is available through membership of the British Interplanetary Society at much reduced rates. Subscription details for members, non-members Our full Guidelines for Authors can be and libraries are available from the above address. downloaded from www.bis-space.com Space Chronicle is a publication that promotes the mission of the British Interplanetary Society. Opinions expressed in signed articles are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor or the Council of the British Interplanetary Society. Security clearance, where necessary, is the responsibility of the author. Published by the British Interplanetary Society. Registered Company No: 402498. Registered Charity No: 250556. Printed by Latimer Trend, Estover Road, Plymouth, PL6 7PY, England. FRONT COVER (1) Tiangong-2; (2) Crews exchange © 2019 British Interplanetary Society. No part of this publication may be reproduced or greetings aboard the ISS; (3) Chinese astronauts Li transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or Qinglong and Wu Jie; and (4) an early Soviet Meteor recording by any information storage or retrieval system without prior permission from the weather satellite. Publishers. SPACE CHRONICLE A BRITISH INTERPLANETARY SOCIETY PUBLICATION

Vol. 72 No.2 2019 Contents

37 OPERATIONS WITH TIANGONG-2 Phillip S. Clark

56 SOVIET WEATHER WATCH The Early Years of the Meteor Programme Bart Hendrickx

62 CHINA’S PATHFINDER ASTRONAUTS Bert Vis

66 CHANGING SHIFT ON THE ISS David J. Shayler

OUR MISSION STATEMENT The British Interplanetary Society promotes the exploration and use of space for the benefit of humanity, connecting people to create, educate and inspire, and advance knowledge in all aspects of astronautics.

37 Contributors

Phillip S. Clark presented a paper at the very first Technical Forum in 1980 and traditionally has delivered the final presentation at most of the subsequently meetings. Since 1969 Phil has focused on Soviet/ Russian and Chinese spaceflight, and has been a space consultant for many years. The author of the popular 1988 book The Soviet Manned Space Programme he has regularly published papers in JBIS and SpaceFlight.

Bart Hendrickx is a long-time observer of the Soviet/Russian space programme and has regularly written on the programme’s history for British Interplanetary Society publications during the last twenty years. He is also co-author, with Bert Vis, of the book Energiya-Buran: The Soviet Space Shuttle, published by Springer/Praxis in 2007. Since the beginning of 2015, he has acted as Executive Secretary of the Belgian branch of the Society.

Bert Vis lives in The Hague, Netherlands, where he works for the local fire service. His interest in spaceflight history started with the launch of Apollo-7 in 1968 and he has followed the manned spaceflight efforts ever since. Concentrating on the Soviet/Russian and Chinese manned space programs in the past two decades, he has co-authored five books on spaceflight history and written dozens of articles for magazines such as Spaceflight and Space Chronicle..

Guest editor

David Shayler attended his first forum in 1983, has presented regularly since then, and from 2012 became Coordinator and Co-Chair of the event. He created Astro Info Service in 1982 to focus his research and writing and was elected to the BIS Council in 2013. David is the author of more than 26 titles on human spaceflight, including cooperative works on the Vostok era and Soyuz with the late Rex Hall, and the Cosmonaut Training Center with Rex and Bert Vis. He is currently working on an update to his Soyuz book and a history of Russian space stations planned for 2021 – the 50th anniversary of Salyut. (www.astroinfoservice.co.uk)

38 Space Chronicle, Vol. 72, pp.39-55, 2019

OPERATIONS WITH TIANGONG 2

PHILLIP S CLARK

The flight of China’sTiangong 2 space laboratory cleared the way for the country to begin operations with the Tiangong Complex, the country’s first true space station. This paper provides an orbital analysis of the Tiangong 2 mission and the two associated flights, the pilotedShenzhou 11 and the unmanned cargo freighter Tianzhou 1. The paper also reviews the orbital decay of Tiangong 1 and the maiden launch of the CZ-7 launch vehicle which is used for the launch of Tianzhou freighters.

Introduction CLARK 2018 © PHILLIP S. ALL GRAPHS

A series of four papers has been published which reviewed the Shenzhou 1-10 missions, as well as the operations with the Tian- gong 1 space laboratory [1,2,3,4], with the emphasis being placed on the analysis of the orbital data and derived numbers. This paper continues the series of reviews of the Chinese piloted space programme, primarily looking at the missions associated with the Fig. 1 This is an updated version of Figure 8 in [4] and it shows Tiangong 2 space laboratory, launched in September 2016. Section the evolution of the Tiangong 1 orbital period from the launch 2 of this paper reviews the orbital decay of Tiangong 1 in 2018 in September 2011 to the orbital decay on April 2, 2018. The which naturally was not covered in the previous paper. launch dates of the three Shenzhou visiting missions are shown, along with the line representing the orbital period for a 31-cir- As well as hosting a single piloted Shenzhou mission, Tiangong cuits repeating orbit. 2 hosted China’s first space station freighter,Tianzhou 1, which was a modification of the Tiangong laboratory’s design. Tianzhou was flown on the second of the new-generation CZ-7 launchers out of a controlled destructive re-entry into the South Pacific Ocean. the new Wenchang launch site on Hainan Island, and therefore The mission description document did not give an exact date represented a significant expansion of Chinese space capabilities. for the space module’s controlled re-entry.

2 Orbital Decay of Tiangong 1 The same source stated that:

The previous review of Tiangong 1 operations [4] took the story During the press conference for the Tiangong 2 launch on through to the end of April 2016. At that time the most recent 14 September 2016, the spokeswoman of the CMSA, Wu orbital data for the laboratory were: Ping, confirmed that Tiangong 1 was intact and operating on a 370 km orbit, with an orbital depletion rate of about 100 2016 Apr 30.87 42.76 deg 92.21 min 375-391 km (AoP)* 73 deg m daily. The space module is expected to burn up during an (*Argument of perigee) uncontrolled atmospheric re-entry sometime in late 2017.

It had been announced on March 21, 2016 that “China’s first Although the CMSA did not give a reason for the abrupt space lab Tiangong 1 terminated its data service” [5]. At that time it ending of the Tiangong 1 mission, it is understood that the was not clear whether the Chinese had retained any control of the mission had ended unexpectedly due to a dysfunctional station or whether it was completely unresponsive to ground com- battery charger, leaving the space module unable to recharge mands. Previously it was known that the Chinese planned to de-or- its batteries from its solar panels. bit the laboratory rather than have it decay naturally from orbit, where it could land anywhere between 42.8 deg N and 42.8 deg S. An update concerning the Tiangong 1 status was published on May 19, 2017 [7]: According to China Space Report online [6] the Tiangong 1 problems were caused by a “dysfunctional battery charger”. Before According to a note verbale from the Permanent Mission of the failure it was said that: China to the United Nations (Vienna), Tiangong-1’s average orbital altitude is 349 kilometres, decaying at a daily rate According to the original mission description document of approximately 160 metres. Its re-entry into the Earth’s published by the China Manned Space Agency (CMSA), at atmosphere is expected to occur between October 2017 and the end of its mission the Tiangong 1 module would perform April 2018.

A minor threshold was passed around June 14, 2017 when the This paper was first presented at the British Interplanetary Society Sino- orbital period of Tiangong 1 fell below the 31 circuits repeating or- Russian Technical Forum in London on 3 June 2018. bit period. The orbital decay rate of Tiangong 1 remained reason-

39 Phillip S. Clark

Fig. 2 Two graphs which show the orbital evolution of Tiangong 1 from the start of 2016 through to the orbital decay: (a) shows the evolution of the orbital period and (b) the evolution of perigee (lower line) and apogee (upper line). It can be seen that the “catastrophic” period or orbital decay started about two months before the decay took place, although there was clearly an increase in the decay rate in September 2017. ably constant until mid-August 2017. During the period August On April 1 (local time) the Joint Force Space Component Com- 15-19 the decay rate approximately doubled. As a result, rather mand issued the following statement [9]: than orbital decay coming in the second quarter of 2018, it was predicted for January 2018. In late October this writer estimated U.S. Strategic Command’s (USSTRATCOM) Joint Forces Space that the decay would come on January 21, although the under- Component Command (JFSCC), through the Joint Space standable caution based upon the difficulties in accurately predict- Operations Center (JSpOC) confirmed Tiangong 1 re-entered ing future decays meant that this prediction appeared in print as the Earth’s atmosphere over the southern Pacific Ocean at being “around the second half of January” [8]. approximately 5:16 pm (PST) April 1, 2018.

New predictions appeared for the orbital decay date and gradu- The JFSCC used the Space Surveillance Network sensors and ally this was pushed into February, then March and finally back to their orbital analysis system to confirm Tiangong 1’s re-entry, April 2018. As the media realised that Tiangong 1 would be re-en- and to refine its prediction and ultimately provide more fidelity tering, ill-informed “scare stories” began to appear: on one level as the re-entry time approached. This information is publicly- it was rather amusing to see all of the fuss being created by the available on USSTRATCOM’s website www.Space-Track.org. decay of Tiangong 1 which had a launch mass of 8,506 kg when The JFSCC also confirmed re-entry through coordination with compared with the re-entry of the American Skylab Orbital Work- counterparts in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, shop in July 1979: that had a mass of 74,783 kg – almost nine times Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom. that of Tiangong. Of course, we now have the Internet which gives voice to all comment, whether knowledgeable and authoritative or [For additional information about China’s Tiangong 1, please simply ill-informed and fabricated. contact the China National Space Administration (CNSA).]

The final re-entry predictions to be issued via the Space-Track The last set of TLEs to be issued forTiangong 1 gave the follow- web site were: ing orbit: Calculated Mar 28 @ 04:43 UT decay Apr 1 @ 01:57 UT ±1,140 min Calculated Mar 29 @ 01:42 UT decay Apr 1 @ 00:52 UT ±900 min Apr 1.672 incl 42.74°, period 87.455 min, altitude 145-152 km, AoP 335° Calculated Mar 30 @ 21:02 UT decay Apr 1 @ 21:29 UT ±600 min Calculated Mar 31 @ 23:56 UT decay Apr 2 @ 00:15 UT ±360 min After 2,376 days 11 hours of flight,Tiangong 1 had returned Calculated Apr 1 @ 12:18 UT decay Apr 2 @ 00:47 UT ±180 min to Earth, with any debris that did not burn up in the atmosphere Calculated Apr 1 @ 18:18 UT decay Apr 2 @ 00:48 UT ±120 min falling in the southern Pacific Ocean. Re-entry had come over ap- Calculated Apr 1 @ 22:53 UT decay Apr 2 @ 00:49 UT ±120 min proximately 13.6 deg S, 164.3 deg W, about 780 km east of Amer- ican Samoa. Xinhua issued the following statement in the early hours (UT) of April 2: 3 Plans for the Tiangong 2 Programme

According to the news from China’s manned space engineering In February 2016 the Chinese philately association of the Xian office, monitoring and analysis conducted by the Beijing based Academy of Liquid Propulsion Technology of the China Aer- Aerospace Flight Control Center and relevant agencies, at ospace Co issued a schedule for special covers which was taken as around 08:15 on April 2, 2018, Tiangong 1 has re-entered the being indicative of schedules for the Tiangong 2 programme [10]: atmosphere, and the re-entrance zone is located in the central area of the South Pacific. Most devices are ablated and destroyed June 2016 CZ-7 maiden flight during re-entry. (Source: China Manned Space Engineering Office) September 2016 Tiangong 2 launch October 2016 Shenzhou 11 launch The time quoted was Beijing Time and it was equivalent to first half 2017 Tianzhou 1 launch 00:15 UT on April 2, rather earlier than the last predictions issued via Space-Track. At 00:59 UT on April 2 Space-Track carried A small subsatellite named Banxing 2 was planned for launch a notification that Tiangong 1 had decayed from orbit at 00:16 UT. with Tiangong 2.

40 Operations with Tiangong 2

Tianzhou would be China’s first cargo re-supply craft: it was es- TABLE 1 Location History of Tianlian Satellites sentially a modification of the Tiangong 1-2 modules and when Satellite Date Event Location fully laden with cargo its mass would be around 13.5 tonnes. Tianlian-1 1 2008 Apr 25 Launch While the two visits to Tiangong 1 had each carried three hang- Tianlian-1 1 2008 May 1 On station 76.4 deg E tianyuans, the Chinese indicated that Shenzhou 11 would car- Tianlian-1 2 2011 Jul 11 Launch ry two men on a flight lasting for about 30 days. Later reports, Tianlian-1 2 2011 Jul 19 On station 76.3 deg E however, indicated that 30 days would be the time spent on board Tiangong 2. Tianlian-1 3 2012 Jul 25 Launch Tianlian-1 3 2012 Aug 6 On station 16.3 deg E A photograph released in April 2016 which was showing a Tianlian-1 1 2013 Jul 2 Off station 76.4 deg E simulated countdown for Shenzhou 11 suggested that the launch Tianlian-1 1 2013 Jul 8 On station 79.4 deg E would be on October 17, 2016 [11]. Tianlian-1 2 2013 Jul 22 Off station 176.3 deg E It had been expected that a second piloted mission would take Tianlian-1 2 2013 Jul 29 On station 170.4 deg E place to Tiangong 2 once the Tianzhou 1 freighter had visited the Tianlian-1 2 2013 Oct 28 Off station 170.4 deg E station. Some western hopes were that Shenzhou 12 might dock Tianlian-1 2 2013 Nov 3 On station 166.4 deg E with Tianzhou 1 to take some supplies on board before docking with Tiangong 2 for a residency. There was western speculation Tianlian-1 3 2016 Jan 15 Off station 16.3 deg E that Shenzhou 12 might see the first Chinese EVA by a woman or Tianlian-1 3 2016 Jan 21 On station 20.0 deg E even an all-female crew might be flown [12]. However the pre- Tianlian-1 2 2016 Jan 22 Off station 166.4 deg E launch CCTV coverage of Shenzhou 11 made it clear that only the Tianlian-1 2 2016 Jan 28 On station 170.4 deg E one piloted mission was planned to visit Tiangong 2. Tianlian-1 2 2016 May 23 Off station 170.4 deg E The rationale for the decision to only fly the single piloted mis- Tianlian-1 2 2016 May 31 On station 176.2 deg E sion to Tiangong 2 was explained by considering the “person days” Tianlian-1 3 2016 Jun 30 Off station 20.0 deg E spent on board Tiangong 1 and Tiangong 2. Two hangtianyuans Tianlian-1 3 2016 Jul 11 On station 10.1 deg E would fly on Shenzhou 11 and the CCTV commentators said that the Tiangong could only support a single visit of 60 man-days. Tianlian-1 4 2016 Nov 22 Launch Thinking back toTiangong 1, that mission had hosted crews of Tianlian-1 4 2016 Dec 1 On station 76.1 deg E three hangtianyuans for 9d 19h 15m (Shenzhou 9) and 11d 17h Notes The satellite locations are derived from the Two-Line Orbital 54m (Shenzhou 10), a total of 63.63 “person-days” which is about Elements. For convenience the launches of new satellites are shown the same as was being planned for Tiangong 2. Therefore on this in bold script and the mission events are split into years. The on and off basis the single mission to Tiangong 2 with a ~30 days residency by station dates might be a day or two in error because of the inherent errors in the TLEs. two hangtianyuans appears to be reasonable. 4 The Tianlian Data Relay Satellite System

At the beginning of 2016 the Chinese were operating three Tian- lian-1 space-space-ground communications/data relay satellites in geosynchronous orbit. The three satellites had been launched from Xichang using the CZ-3C launch vehicle. The orbital location history of the satellites through to early 2016 was discussed in [13] and a full location history of the satellites is shown in Table 1 and Figure 3. In November 2016 the fourth Tianlian-1 satellite joined the constellation.

In January 2016 both Tianlian-1 2 and 3 had their locations shifted by about 3.5-4 degrees to the east. In late May Tianlian-1 2 was relocated a further 6 degrees to the east and then at the end of June Tianlian 1 3 was relocated 10 degrees to the west. Fig. 3 The locations of the four Tianlian-1 data-relay satellites Clearly the Chinese believed that the three Tianlian-1 satellites from their launches through to May 29th, 2018: this is an would be sufficient to support theShenzhou 11 piloted mission update of Figure 6 in [4]. These satellites are primarily to Tiangong 2. Although a fourth Tianlian-1 was scheduled for used for space-space-ground communications, including launch, the new satellite was not orbited until November 22, 2016, communications with Tiangong 2, Shenzhou 11 and Tianzhou four days after the recovery of the Shenzhou 11 crew: the launch 1. The fourth Tianlian-1 satellite was launched shortly after the from Xichang used the CZ-3C and took place at 15:24 UT. The recovery of the Shenzhou 11 crew. new satellite was initially located close to 76 deg E, suggesting that it might be a replacement for the eight-years old Tianlian-1 1. 5 Maiden Launch of the Changzheng 7 Vehicle As well as being used for space-space-ground communications in the Tiangong programme it is believed that the Tianlian satel- The newChangzheng 7 (“Long March” 7), CZ-7, launch vehicle lites are used for data relay by Jianbing reconnaissance satellites is part of a new family of launch vehicles which uses technology and some of their civilian relatives in the Gaofen and other remote being developed for the medium-lift CZ-5 programme. The first sensing programmes. launch vehicle to be derived from the CZ-5 was the CZ-6 which

41 Phillip S. Clark

Table 2 Objects from the First CZ-7 Launch Orbital Orbital Orbital Apogee Perigee Angle of Date Epoch Inclination (°) Period (min) (km) (km) Decay (°) 2016 2016-042A Yuanzheng 1A stage Jun 25.69 40.81 91.23 288 381 175 2016 Jun 27 2016-042B Aoxiang Zhixing Jun 25.69 40.80 91.19 289 377 176 2016 Sep 29 2016-042C Yuanzheng 1A debris Jun 25.81 40.80 90.32 201 379 173 2016 Sep 11 2016-042D Re-entry shroud Jun 25.81 40.80 90.30 201 377 173 2016 Jul 2 2016-042E CZ-7 second stage Jun 25.80 40.80 90.34 204 379 174 2016 Jul 28 2016-042F Aolong 1 Jun 25.80 40.81 90.34 202 380 173 2016 Aug 27 2016-042G Separation motor cover Jun 25.74 40.65 92.14 198 561 155 2016 Jul 4 2016-042H Separation motor cover Jun 25.75 40.47 92.32 198 578 162 2016 Jul 4 2016-042J Separation motor cover Jun 25.74 41.17 92.42 200 587 176 2016 Jul 4 2016-042K Separation motor cover Jun 25.74 40.98 92.44 196 592 182 2016 Jul 3 2016-042L Tiange Feixingqi 1 Jun 29.95 40.77 90.22 280 291 322 2016 Aug 27 2016-042M Tiange Feixingqi 2 Jun 29.95 40.83 90.24 279 293 332 2016 Aug 24 2016-042N Launch debris No orbital data issued 2016 Jun 29 Notes The orbital data shown above and in subsequent similar Tables in this paper are derived from the Two-Line Orbital Elements issued via the Space-Track web site. Orbital decay dates are taken from the Satellite Situation Report list of decayed objects, again available from the Space-Track web site. Duoyongtu Feichuan Fanhui Gang, the sub-scale model of a future Chinese piloted spacecraft, remained attached to the Yuanzheng 1A third stage/”space tug” while in orbit and therefore it was not catalogued by USSTRATCOM. Zai Guijia Zhu Shiyan Zhuangzhi also remained attached to the Yuanzheng 1A stage throughout its flight and therefore it was not catalogued by USSTRATCOM. had its maiden flight on September 19, 2015 from Taiyuan: this The significance of the CZ-7 in China’s piloted space programme was the first Chinese launch vehicle to use the propellants kero- is that it is the launch vehicle for the Tianzhou cargo spacecraft sene and liquid oxygen. which will be flown on a regular basis to the Tiangong Complex when its operations begin in 2020. The CZ-5 launch vehicle can fly using four strap-ons which can be either four with a diameter of 3.35 metres or four with a diame- The launch vehicle configuration for the maiden launch added ter of 2.25 metres or two strap-ons of each diameter. The CZ-7 uses the Yuanzheng-1A (YZ-1A) “space tug” stage to the two-stage CZ- a modification of the 3.35 metres diameter strap-on as its central 7. This would manoeuvre in orbit, deploying satellites in different core and this is surrounded by four of the CZ-5 2.25 metre diame- orbits and it was used to de-orbit the Duoyongu Feichuan Fanhui ter strap-ons, with a second stage core that performs orbital injec- Gang sub-scale model of a future piloted spacecraft. tion: this vehicle can place about 14 tonnes into a low Earth orbit. For missions to geosynchronous transfer or deep space orbits a The Chinese showed the launch of the first CZ-7 “live” on tel- LOX/hydrogen third stage will be added to the assembly. evision for the world to see on June 25, 2016, the actual launch XINHUA

Fig. 4 The maiden launch of the CZ-7 vehicle from pad 201 at the new Wenchang launch site: this was the first orbital launch from the new site and it was broadcast on CCTV and thus available to watch “live” on the internet.

42 Operations with Tiangong 2 time being a few seconds after midday UT (Figure 4). As well as being the debut of the CZ-7, this was also the first launch from the Wenchang launch centre on Hainan Island. At present there are XINHUA two space launch pads available at the site: LC201 for the CZ-7 and LC101 for the CZ-5 which would make its successful debut on November 3, 2016.

The CZ-7 carried the following payloads:

Duoyongu Feichuan Fanhui Gang (“multipurpose subscale spacecraft return capsule”, Figure 5): this remained attached to the YZ-1A until the rocket stage had de-orbited the spacecraft. It was a frustum, 2.6 metres diameter and 2.3 metres high, with a mass of 2,600 kg: it was a 60% model of the re-entry vehicle for the planned new generation piloted spacecraft. The spacecraft landed on June 26 at 07:41 UT.

Aoxiang Zhixing (“hover star”): an 18 kg 12U variant CubeSAT Fig. 5 Recovery of Duoyongu Feichuan Fanhui Gang, the prima- developed by Shaanxi Engineering Laboratory for Microsatellites, ry payload of the maiden CZ-7 mission. This is a scale model the satellite was undertaking gravity field measurements and test- of the new generation manned spacecraft that China plans to ing navigation technology. introduce during the mid-2020s: test of the full scale spacecraft are planned before the end of 2020 using the CZ-7 (Earth Aolong 1: a CAST payload for space debris research. orbital version of the spacecraft) and the CZ-5 (lunar variant of the spacecraft). Tiange Feixinqqi 1 and 2 (“dove aircraft”) were small data relay satellites.

Zai Guijia Zhu Shiyan Zhuangzhi (“In-Orbit Refueling Experi- XINHUA mental Device”): this remained attached to the YZ-1A and it tested fluid transfer in space conditions.

The maiden launch of the CZ-7 was deemed to be a success and cleared the way for the first launch of theTianzhou cargo freighter in April 2017. 6 Launch of Tiangong 2

Tiangong 2 (Figure 6) was seen as an improved version of Tiangong 1 which was launched in September 2011. While the primary role of Tiangong 1 had been to act as a docking target for the unmanned Shenzhou 8 and the piloted Shenzhou 9 and 10 spacecraft, as well as allowing the crews to remain in orbit for about two weeks, Tian- gong 2 was seen as more of a base to conduct experiments and research by the sole crew who would board it.

Of course, there was live coverage of the Tiangong 2 launch provided by Chinese television. The pre-launch studio discussion made it clear that there would be a single crew visiting the laboratory aboard Shenzhou 11, despite western expectations of a Shenzhou 12 residency: the rationale behind this in terms of the life-support system’s ability to support residencies has been discussed in section 4 above.

An interesting comment was that Tiangong 2 would be operating in an orbit about 380 km high – significantly higher than the Tiangong 1 orbits when it was hosting crews. Since the Chinese model of the Earth used for their orbital data can give altitudes up to 10 km different from those derived from western observations, calculations showed that the laboratory’s orbit would probably be a 46-circuits repeating pattern rather than 31-circuits repeating as seen on Tiangong 1 while crews were on board and also the previous “solo” Shenzhou missions (with the exception of Shenzhou 1). The 46-circuits repeating pattern meant that the orbit should be 92.25 minutes, 385 km mean altitude [14]. Fig. 6 TheTiangong 2 spacecraft undergoing tests before An accurate mass was not announced for the laboratory, but it launch.

43 Phillip S. Clark was said to be 8.6 tonnes, which – if correct – is around 100 kg heavier than Tiangong 1. On the other hand, it should be noted that the Chinese do have a habit of rounding data up.

The pre-launch television discussion also noted that Tiangong 2 was being launched partially-fuelled, since this would allow more experiments and other equipment to be carried aboard the laboratory [15]. The rationale behind this was that theTianzhou 1 cargo freighter would be transferring propellant to Tiangong when it performed its planned docking with the laboratory.

At the time of the Tiangong 2 launch in September 2016 the three Tianlian communications satellites were located as follows: Tianlian-1 1 79 deg E Tianlian-1 2 176 deg E Tianlian-1 3 10 deg E

The laboratory’s launch from Jiuquan came on September 15, 2016 Fig. 7 Orbital period evolution of Tiangong 2 from launch at 14:04:12.428 UT and it was successfully placed into orbit. Table through to May 29, 2018. The launches of Shenzhou 11 and 3 lists the objects catalogued from the launch (Banxing 2 appeared Tianzhou 1 are shown, with the line representing the orbital in October 2016), although USSTRATCOM managed to totally period for a 46-circuits repeating orbit. confuse these objects for the first few days after the launch.

Table 4 lists the orbital manoeuvres conducted by the laboratory. 7 Flight of Piloted Shenzhou 11 The Chinese announced the times of the first two manoeuvres (the confusion over the identity of the objects from the launch results Western observers had originally assumed that the Shenzhou 11 in these not being fully detailed in Table 4): crew would comprise three hangtianyuans, and therefore it was a surprise when the Chinese announced in June 2016 that the crew Manoeuvre 1 – September 15 at 18:45:11 UT (hh:mm:ss) would comprise two men [17]. On October 7 it was noted that the Manoeuvre 2 – September 16 at 08:59:59 UT Chinese had confirmed that the new crew would be launched to On September 25 the Chinese announced that Tiangong was in Tiangong 2 on October 17 (Beijing Time) [18], but the actual mis- a 393 km orbit and was ready for the crew to be launched aboard sion’s flight time was not stated – only that the crew would remain Shenzhou 11 [16]. In Table 4 the corresponding orbit is 382-389 on board the laboratory for (about) 30 days. km. By October 16-17 the orbit of Tiangong 2 had decayed slightly No further orbital manoeuvres took place before the launch of after the September 25 manoeuvre so that it was in the predicted Shenzhou 11. Figure 7 shows the orbital evolution of Tiangong 2 46-circuits repeating pattern. Figure 8 is a “high resolution” plot of and also indicates the 46-circuits repeating orbit period. the orbital period of Tiangong 2 during the period from its launch

Table 3 Objects from the Tiangong 2 Launch Orbital Epoch Orbital Orbital Period Apogee Perigee Angle of Date Inclination (°) (min) (km) (km) Perigee (°) 2016 2016-057A Tiangong 2 Sep 15.82 42.76 90.24 195 377 132 In orbit

2016-057B CZ-2F/T second stage Sep 15.76 42.79 89.82 197 334 130 2016 Sep 29

2016-057C Separation motor cover Sep 15.76 42.92 91.33 188 491 145 2016 Sep 20

2016-057D Separation motor cover Sep 16.27 42.62 91.77 190 532 126 2016 Sep 20

2016-057E Separation motor cover Sep 16.27 42.00 1.96 183 558 120 2016 Sep 20

2016-057F Separation motor cover Sep 16.29 42.97 91.19 189 477 144 2016 Sep 18

2016-057G Launch debris Sep 15.89 42.91 88.89 148 291 98 2016 Sep 16

2016-057H Banxing 2 Oct 24.37 42.79 92.14 375 384 350 In orbit NOTES The format of this Table follows that of Table 2. The initial orbital data for objects A, B and C were originally incorrectly assigned in the Two-Line Orbital Elements, and it is hoped that this Table has the objects correctly assigned. Tiangong 2 and Banxing 2 were still in orbit when this paper was submitted for publication.

44 Operations with Tiangong 2

Table 4 Tiangong 2 Orbital Manoeuvres Orbital Orbital Orbital Apogee Perigee Angle of Orbital Orbital Orbital Apogee Perigee Angle of Epoch Inclination Period (km) (km) Perigee Epoch Inclination Period (km) (km) Perigee (°) (min) (°) (°) (min) (°) 2016 2016 Initial orbit Sep 15.821 42.76 90.24 195 377 132 Sep 16.282 42.79 90.23 198 373 135 Sep 18.131 42.79 92.04 37 037 948 Sep 24.829 42.78 92.02 370 378 108 Sep 24.975 42.79 92.16 374 387 177 Sep 25.155 42.78 92.16 374 387 178 Sep 25.659 42.78 92.27 382 389 120 Shenzhou 11 docking Oct 18.929 42.79 92.23 379 389 281 Oct 20.360 42.79 92.23 379 389 285 Oct 20.491 42.78 92.16 374 386 341 Banxing 2 deployment Oct 23.160 42.79 92.15 374 385 349 Shenzhou 11 undocking Nov 17.098 42.78 92.11 373 383 196 2017 2017 Mar 4.994 42.78 91.99 367 378 234 Mar 5.433 42.78 92.08 373 380 348 Mar 5.433 42.78 92.08 373 380 348 Mar 5.558 42.78 92.15 374 386 251 Apr 4.849 42.78 92.12 374 382 107 Apr 5.942 42.78 92.24 380 389 202 Apr 5.942 42.78 92.24 380 389 202 Apr 7.858 42.79 92.27 382 389 204 Tianzhou 1 docking Apr 22.838 42.79 92.25 380 390 291 Jun 16.727 42.79 92.23 377 391 329 Jun 18.578 42.78 92.28 379 393 354 Tianzhou 1 undocking and redocking Jun 20.438 42.78 92.28 380 393 7 Jun 20.438 42.78 92.28 380 393 7 Jun 21.582 42.78 92.43 391 397 277 Tianzhou 1 undocking Jun 21.582 42.78 92.43 391 397 277 Tianzhou 1 redocking Sep 12.912 42.78 92.38 390 393 162 Tianzhou 1 undocking Sep 17.514 42.78 92.38 390 393 201 NOTES In this Table. and also Tables 6 and 8. the orbital epochs for manoeuvring spacecraft are given to three decimal places for the decimal day: for other objects from the launches (Tables 6 and 8) only two decimal places are shown. During the period March 16 to May 2, 2017 only one element set – sometimes no element sets – was being issued for Tiangong 2 (and other satellites) each day, meaning that manoeuvres cannot be identified as easily as normal.

Fig. 8 A more detailed plot of the orbital period evolution of Tiangong 2 during the period between launch and the end of September 2017: it was during this period that the station was operating first with the Shenzhou 11 crew and then with the Tianzhou 1 cargo freighter. The orbital period of Tianzhou is shown to indicate how this differed from the orbital laboratory during the periods that the two craft were undocked.

45 Phillip S. Clark XINHUA

Fig. 9 The photograph (left) went online in April 2016 – before Tiangong 2 had been launched – and appeared to show data for a training run for the Shenzhou 11 launch: certainly, the date of October 17, 2016 that is clearly shown was the actual launch date of Shenzhou 11 six months later (right) with two hangtanyuans on board for a month-long stay on Tiangong 2. through to the end of operations with Tianzhou 1 in 2017. October 16, showing all of the events and ceremonies as the two hangtianyuans prepared to leave for the launch, travelled to the The CZ-2F/G vehicle was transported to the launch pad on launch and then entered the spacecraft: live coverage started a little October 10. The Chinese waited until the pre-launch press con- after 20:00 UT. Presumably the Chinese authorities were confident ference on October 16 to announce the names of the two crew with their launch procedures and thus were happy for the viewing members: the commander was the veteran Jing Haipeng and his public to see everything (Figure 9). “descent module operator” was the rookie Chen Dong. Jing would be making his third flight, having flown as the descent module As an interesting aside, the CCTV studio chat included the operator on Shenzhou 7 and then as commander of Shenzhou 9: by comment that the Chinese had been doing “bed rest” experiments virtue of the latter mission to Tiangong 1, he would also be the first of 1-2 years duration in preparation for future long space missions: hangtianyuan to enter two space laboratories. No indications were such experiments had been undertaken by the Moscow Institute of immediately given about the back-up crew. The press conference Biomedical Problems in the late 1980s in preparation for long mis- said that the total flight time of the mission would be around 33 sions including the first year-long piloted flight (the crew launched days [19]. on Soyuz-TM 4).

Chinese television went overboard on the evening (UK time) of After full CCTV coverage of the launch preparations, including

Table 5 Tiangong 2 Orbital Manoeuvres Mission Shenzhou 11 Tianzhou 1 Launch date and time (hh:mm UT) 2016 Oct 16 @ 23:31 2017 Apr 20 @ 11:42 First manoeuvre date and time (hh:mm UT) 2016 Oct 17 @14:15* Second manoeuvre date and time (hh:mm UT) 2016 Oct 18 @ 08:37* Circular orbit manoeuvre date and time (hh:mm UT) 2016 Oct 18 @ 14:33 First docking date and time (hh:mm UT) 2016 Oct 18 @ 19:24 2017 Apr 22 @ 04:16 First undocking date and time (hh:mm UT) 2017 Jun 19 @ 01:37 Second docking date and time (hh:mm UT) 2017 Jun 19 @ 06:55 Second undocking date and time (hh:mm UT) 2017 Jun 21 @ 01:47 Third docking date and time (hh:mm UT) 2017 Sep 12 @ 15:58 Final undocking date and time (hh:mm UT) 2016 Nov 17 @ 04:41 2017 Sep 17 @ 08:15 Orbital module separation date and time (hh:mm UT) 2016 Nov 18 @ 05:11 Descent module recovery date and time (hh:mm UT) 2016 Nov 18 @ 06:00 De-orbit/re-entry date and time (hh:mm UT) 2017 Sep 22 @ ~10:00 Mission duration (hhh:mm) 774:29 CZ-2F second stage decay date 2016 Nov 4 NOTES *These times are estimated and they are mid-way between the epochs of the pre- and post- manoeuvre orbits.

46 Operations with Tiangong 2

Table 6 Objects from the Shenzhou 11 Launch Orbital Orbital Orbital Apogee Perigee Angle of Orbital Orbital Orbital Apogee Perigee Angle of Epoch Inclination Period (km) (km) Perigee Epoch Inclination Period (km) (km) Perigee (°) (min) (°) (°) (min) (°) 2016 2016 2016-061A Shenzhou 11 Initial orbit Oct 17.499 42.79 90.09 197 361 132 Oct 17.564 42.79 90.09 197 361 133 Oct 17.624 42.78 91.55 335 366 141 Oct 18.208 42.78 91.55 335 367 146 Oct 18.510 42.79 91.97 366 376 268 Oct 18.510 42.79 91.97 366 376 268 Oct 18.702 42.79 92.23 379 389 278 Shenzhou 11 docking with Tiangong 2 Oct 18.929 42.79 92.23 379 389 281 Shenzhou 11 undocking with Tiangong 2 Nov 17.098 42.78 92.11 373 383 196 Nov 17.098 42.78 92.11 373 383 196 Nov 17.793 42.78 92.16 375 387 110 Nov 17.928 42.78 92.17 375 386 110 Final orbit catalogued before recovery 2016-061B CZ-2F/G second stage Oct 17.62 42.79 90.09 197 360 134 2016-061D Separation motor cover Oct 17.69 42.60 91.28 193 482 120 2016-061D Separation motor cover Oct 17.69 42.64 91.25 191 480 116 2016-061E Separation motor cover Oct 17.69 42.94 91.97 194 548 137 2016-061F Separation motor cover Oct 17.69 42.89 91.92 192 545 140 2016-061G Shenzhou 11 orbital module Nov 22.92 42.80 92.17 375 388 147 NOTES The Shenzhou 11 orbital module was still in orbit when this paper was submitted for publication. details of all of the testing and checking that was being undertaken, the launch of Shenzhou 11 came on October 16 at 23:30:31.409 UT with the usual Chinese live television pictures from the launch XINHUA vehicle as it ascended and of the crew inside the descent module. The interval between the Tiangong 2 launch and that of Shenzhou 11 was 31 days 9h 27m which was very similar to the interval between Tiangong 1 and Shenzhou 8, 32 days 8h 42m.

Table 5 provides a summary of the main mission events of both Shenzhou 11 and Tianzhou 1 and Table 6 lists the objects tracked from the Shenzhou 11 launch.

After orbital injection the Chinese announced that various Shenzhou 11 orbital corrections had taken place, but they omitted to give the times. Using the epochs (ie, dates and times) of the or- Fig. 10 Tiangong 2/Shenzhou 11 taken by Banxing 2 after its bital data derived from the Two-Line Orbital Elements (TLEs) and deployment from Tiangong. which are quoted in Table 6, the following can be identified (MET is mission elapsed time, the time since launch): on October 18 at 19:24 UT, 43h 55m after the Shenzhou launch, a little longer than had been seen on the Tiangong 1 missions. The Manoeuvre 1 ra ise perigee altitude: interval Oct 17.564 – Oct hatch to the new laboratory was opened at 22:25 UT, with Jing 17.624 entering Tiangong at 22:27 UT and Chen following at 22:33 UT. ie, between 13:32 UT and 14:59 UT ie, MET 14h 01m to 15h 28m It was known that Tiangong 2 had carried a passenger at launch, the sub-satellite Tiangong er hao bansui weixing or simply Banxing Manoeuvre 2 ra ise perigee/apogee altitudes: interval Oct 18.208 – 2: the first Banxing had been released from Shenzhou 7 after the Oct 18.510 EVA operations had been completed. On October 18 it was an- ie, between 05:00 UT and 12:14 UT nounced that the second Banxing would be deployed on October ie, MET 29h 29m to 36h 43m 23 [20]. Before the deployment there was a minor “first” for the Tiangong programme: on October 20 there was a small manoeuvre Manoeuvre 3 match Tiangong 2 orbit: interval Oct 18.510 – Oct to lower the orbit of the laboratory (see Table 4) – the first time 18.702 that an occupied Tiangong had performed an orbital manoeuvre – ie, between 12:14 UT and 16h 51m although Tiangong 1 had manoeuvred while the unmanned Shen- ie, MET 36h 43m to 41h 20m zhou 8 had been docked. Whether this was specifically linked to the deployment of Banxing 2 is not known. It will be noted that the above manoeuvre timescales differ significantly from the profiles noted in section 3 for the operations with The subsatellite deployment came on October 22 at 23:31 UT Tiangong 1 – assuming, of course, that the TLE data are accurate. (October 23 Beijing Time). The first photographs fromBanxing 2 of the Tiangong 2/Shenzhou 11 complex to be released were taken The initial docking between Shenzhou 11 and Tiangong 2 came in the infra-red, but later photos showed the assembly in visible

47 Phillip S. Clark light (Figure 10). On November 15 it was stated that Shenzhou 11 would return to Earth on November 18 [21], which was a day earlier than expected based upon the 46-circuits orbit repeating cycle. However when this writer did the calculations the best equator crossing for landing at the normal site came on day 2 of the three day cycle, thus explaining the apparently “early” recovery.

There appears to have been a small orbital manoeuvre of Tian- gong 2 on November 15-16 but the orbital period reduction of around 0.01 minutes is on the borderline of what can be deduced with confidence from the TLE data.

The two hangtianyuans transferred from Tiangong 2 to Shenzhou 11 for the final time on November 17 and undocked from the laboratory at 04:41 UT: Shenzhou had been docked with Tiangong for 29d 9h 17m, the Chinese clearly having rounded this “up” to obtain a “30 days” residency on board the laboratory. Following the undocking there appears to have been a small orbit-raising manoeuvre of Shenzhou 11, as shown in Table 6. After the now-usual (but still unexplained) day in orbit after the undocking, on November 18 the Shenzhou forward module separated and at 05:11 UT the retrofire burn started to bring the spacecraft out of orbit.

Although there were television shots of the returning descent module, Chinese television seemed to be lacking any real-time details about the landing. Landing came at 05:59:38 UT but there was reportedly an overshoot of 100 km. The flight had lasted for 774h 29m, somewhat less than the 33 days (792 hours) which the Chi- nese had previously announced: once more, clearly the Chinese prefer to round up their data. The interval between undocking Fig. 11 (top) Evolution of the Banxing 2 orbital period com- from Tiangong and landing was 25h 29m, the longest such interval pared with that of Tiangong 2. The two were in close orbits until in the four flights to Tiangong laboratories. the beginning of March 2017 when Tiangong 2 was manoeuvred to a higher orbit. (above) The phasing around its orbit of 8 Tiangong 2 Operations, October 2016 to April 2017 Banxing 2 relative to Tiangong 2 from the satellite’s deployment to the end of joint operations. After its deployment from Tiangong 2 on October 22, the Banxing 2 satellite flew in formation with the laboratory, regularly manoeuvring until November 26. The evolution of the satellite’s orbital pe- being the back-up launch date [24] (as would be expected from the riod compared with that of Tiangong is shown in Figure 9(a). Fig- 46-circuits repeating orbit of Tiangong 2). ure 9(b) shows the phasing around the orbit of Banxing 2 relative to Tiangong 2, with a positive phasing indicating that Tiangong is Once in orbit there would be three dockings/undockings of ahead of Banxing. Part of the variation in the phasing is because Tianzhou 1 with Tiangong 2, as follows [25]: of the difficulties in accurately determining the phasing using the TLEs when the two orbital periods are so close to each other. 1 Launch of Tianzhou 1 2 First docking with Tiangong 2 The last manoeuvre of Banxing 2 that can be detected using the 3 Undocking of Tianzhou 1 and flying around Tiangong 2 TLEs came on December 20 and after that time the orbit was de- 4 Second docking with Tiangong 2 caying naturally. The manoeuvre placedBanxing slightly higher 5 Undocking of Tianzhou 1 than Tiangong, but about a month later the orbital periods of the 6 Third docking (a rapid one) with Tiangong 2 two objects were the same, and after thatTiangong was in the 7 Joint orbit change slightly higher orbit. The joint flight ofTiangong 2 and Banxing 2 8 Undocking of Tianzhou 1 and separate flying was ended on March 5 (2017) when the laboratory manoeuvred to an orbit significantly higher than that of Banxing 2 [22]. As far as item 3 is concerned, the plan was for the two craft to undock, both would “flip” by 180 degrees, with Tianzhou manoeu- The March 5 manoeuvres had put Tiangong 2 into an orbit with vring around Tiangong so that once more the docking units were a period of 92.15 minutes: this was below the 46-circuits repeating facing each other before docking again. orbit and therefore further manoeuvres were anticipated before the launch of the Tianzhou 1 cargo freighter which was scheduled The Chinese have stated that there would be different variants of for April 23, 2017 [23]. the Tianzhou freighter in future [26]:

9 Launch of the Tianzhou 1 Cargo Freighter [.....] spaceship’s cargo cabin is hermetically sealed because one of the spacecraft’s tasks is to test in-orbit resupply technology, in- The launch ofTianzhou 1 was originally reported to be scheduled cluding the transportation of astronauts’ necessities that require for April 23, 2017 at 10:20 UT [23], but the launch was actually isolation from space. earlier than this: it was scheduled for April 20 with April 23 as

48 Operations with Tiangong 2

“We will design two variants of Tianzhou 1,” Yang said. The first

variant will have a cargo area that is hermetically sealed like the XINHUA Tianzhou 1 as well as a cargo area that is partly open to space to allow for more storage, he said.

The first variant will be used to transport astronauts’ supplies and small spare parts needed at the space station.

The second variant will be open and will carry cargo that does not need protection from space conditions. It will haul large parts as well as any spacecraft to be launched from the station, he said.

In the case of all three types of spacecraft, the propulsion cabin will remain hermetically sealed like that of Tianzhou 1, Yang said. None of the craft will be designed to be reusable. Fig. 12 Rollout of Tianzhou 1 atop the second CZ-7 launch There were orbit-raising manoeuvres of Tiangong 2 during vehicle at the Wenchang site. April 4-5 and April 5-7 in preparation for the Tianzhou 1 launch cessfully placed into orbit. (see Table 4): the last manoeuvre had left the orbit slightly above the 46-circuits repeating orbital period. At the time of the launch there were on-going problems with the supply of Two-Line Orbital Elements, with at the most only Tianzhou 1 (mass 12,910 kg [27]) was rolled out to the launch one element set per object being issued every day: as a result of pad atop the CZ-7 launch vehicle on April 17 (Figure 12). As usu- this, it is impossible to try and identify with any accuracy the times al, full television coverage (in English) was given of the launch by of the various orbital manoeuvres. Indeed, the data for the initial Chinese Central Television. The launch from pad 201 at Wenchang orbit of Tianzhou were not issued. Table 7 lists the objects cata- came on April 20 at 11:41:35.361 UT and the spacecraft was suc- logued from this launch and indicates the detected manoeuvres

Table 7 Objects from the Tianzhou 1 Launch Orbital Orbital Orbital Apogee Perigee Angle of Orbital Orbital Orbital Apogee Perigee Angle of Epoch Inclination Period (km) (km) Perigee Epoch Inclination Period (km) (km) Perigee (°) (min) (°) (°) (min) (°) 2017 2017 2017-021A Tianzhou 1 Initial orbit Apr 21.841 42.79 90.19 202 365 182 Apr 21.841 42.79 90.19 202 365 182 Apr 20.863 42.79 91.33 311 369 181 Apr 20.863 42.79 91.33 311 369 181 Apr 21.746 42.78 92.00 367 378 276 Apr 21.746 42.78 92.00 367 378 276 Tianzhou 1 docking with Tiangong 2 Oct 18.929 42.79 92.23 379 389 281 Tianzhou 1 undocking and redocking Jun 21.582 42.78 92.45 393 397 274 Jun 21.582 Deployment of Silu 1 satellite

Aug 27.888 42.78 92.43 392 395 340 Aug 29.182 42.78 92.42 392 394 332 Sep 11.270 42.78 92.41 393 393 104 Tianzhou 1 redocking Sep 12.912 42.78 92.38 390 393 162

Tianzhou 1 undocking Oct 17.69 42.89 91.92 192 545 140 Oct 17.69 42.89 91.92 192 545 140 Final orbit catalogued before de-orbit 2017-021B CZ-7 second stage Apr 21.84 42.79 90.19 202 365 182 2017-021C Separation motor cover Apr 20.87 42.47 92.10 195 560 164 2017-021D Separation motor cover Apr 20.87 42.65 92.01 192 554 157 2017-021F Separation motor cover Apr 20.94 43.12 91.86 199 533 179 2017-021F Silu 1 Aug 2.90 2.79 92.37 387 395 226 NOTES As previously noted in connection with Tiangong 2, during the period March 16 to May 2, 2017 only one Two-Line Element set – sometimes no element sets – was being issued for objects in orbit each day, meaning that manoeuvres cannot be identified as easily as normal. * This is actually the initial orbit of the CZ-7 second stage: the initial orbit of Tianzhou 1 was not catalogued because of the TLE problem noted above. Normally there are four separation motor covers catalogued: it would appear that one with an inclination close to 43.1 deg has not been officially catalogued. Silu 1 was still in orbit when this paper was submitted for publication.

49 Phillip S. Clark XINHUA VIA NASASPACEFLIGHT.COM VIA NASASPACEFLIGHT.COM

Fig. 13 (left) Artist’s impression of Tianzhou 1 (on left) approaching Tiangong 2 for their first docking; (above) television image taken from Tiangong 2 of Tianzhou 1 as its completing the final approach for the first docking between the two spacecraft. which took place after the launch. UT [29] and continued until April 27 at 11:07 UT [30]. Live television coverage was also provided of the first docking of Tianzhou 1 with Tiangong 2 on April 22, with coverage pro- Things went quiet for two months and then in mid-June there vided from cameras on board both spacecraft: Figure 13 shows was a flurry of activity. the approaching Tianzhou with its tilted solar panels as seen from Tiangong. The solar panels on Tiangong were oriented to be paral- The second propellant transfer was reported on June 15, after it lel to the Earth’s surface to minimise solar reflections as seen from had been completed [31]: Tianzhou. “Soft” docking took place at 04:16 UT and the “hard” docking followed at 04:23 UT. China’s Tianzhou-1 cargo spacecraft and Tiangong-2 space lab completed their second in-orbit refueling at 6:28 pm [10.28 10 Joint Operations of Tiangong 2 and Tianzhou 1 UT] Thursday.

Being a cargo freighter, Tianzhou 1 carried a simulated cargo sup- The second refueling, lasting about two days, further tested ply (Figure 14) in addition to the propellant to be transferred to the country’s refueling technology and cemented technical Tiangong 2 [28]: results from the first refueling.

Cargo loaded inside was apparently “real ones or mass On June 19, once more with no prior warning, it was an- simulators” simulating a load for 3 people for a 30 days nounced that Tianzhou 1 had undocked from Tiangong 2 and then mission. There is also one “space suit simulator” ...... , 1 each completed a redocking [32]:- of drinking water and hard water containers and 2 mass simulators of oxygen and nitrogen tanks. Tianzhou-1 separated from Tiangong-2 on Monday morning [June 19] and remained at distance of five kilometers behind In addition to biomedical experiments, one of the major tests to the space lab for about 90 minutes. be conducted while Tianzhou 1 was docked with Tiangong 2 was for propellant to be transferred automatically from the former to Then, it was commanded to fly around Tiangong-2 from the latter. The first propellant transfer started on April 22 at 23:26 behind to a distance of five kilometers in front of the space lab. During the flight, both Tianzhou-1 and Tiangong-2 turned in a semicircle.

XINHUA The undocking had come at 01:37 UT and the two spacecraft redocked at 06:55 UT.

Two days later at 01:16 UT the command was issued for the two spacecraft to separate once more, and the actual undocking was completed at 01:47 UT [33]:

China’s Tianzhou 1 cargo spacecraft has begun a three- month independent flight after detaching from the Tiangong 2 space laboratory on Wednesday morning, according to the China Manned Space Agency.

The undocking sequence started at 9:17 am [01.17 UT] and lasted about 30 minutes. Tianzhou 1 now operates in an orbit nearly 390 kilometers above the ground, the agency said in a news release on Wednesday. Fig. 14 Television pictures of the interior of Tianzhou 1, showing the simulated cargo packages looking towards the front At some time between June 20-21 the orbit of the docked as- of the cargo module, with the hatch to the docking unit being sembly was raised from 380-393 km to 391-397 km. The actual clearly shown. time of the manoeuvre is not known but the lower orbit was the

50 Operations with Tiangong 2 last one to be catalogued before the second undocking and the higher orbit was the first catalogued after the undocking. The first post-undocking orbit catalogued for Tianzhou 1 was 393-397 km, slightly higher than the Tiangong orbit.

A reasonable reconstruction of the events is that before the second undocking of the two craft the orbit was raised to 391-397 km and it was in this orbit that the two craft undocked on June 21: after the undocking the orbit of Tianzhou was further raised slightly to increase its separation rate from Tiangong. The Chinese have given no indication which craft completed the manoeuvre to the 391-397 km orbit, but it was possibly Tiangong since its propellant supply has so recently been topped up by Tianzhou.

The Chinese announced that the two craft would redock after three months of independent flight. One might speculate that the Fig. 15 Graph showing the phasing around the orbit of redocking manoeuvre would be a practice for the operations of Tianzhou 1 relative to Tiangong 2: the rapid redocking by docking the automatic Xuntian space telescope with the Tiangong Tianzhou 1 with Tiangong 2 on September 12, 2017 is apparent Complex for periodic servicing by the crew on board the station. from this graph.

On August 1 at 07:03 UT Tianzhou 1 released a small subsatellite Silu 1 (“Silk Road”): this was a 3U CubeSat with a remote sensing being a fully successful maiden flight of China’s cargo freighter. mission: the satellite was not formally catalogued until 36 hours The secondTianzhou is scheduled for launch in 2020 between the after its deployment. launches of Tianhe 1, the core module of the Tiangong Complex, and Shenzhou 12, the first piloted visit to the embryonic space sta- There was no obvious activity with Tianzhou 1 until August 28- tion. 29 when there was a minor orbital adjustment, reducing the orbital period from 92.429 minutes to 92.419 minutes. During the period 11 Tiangong 2 Operations After Tianzhou 1 September 2-9 there was a major reduction in the number of TLEs issued for the freighter: during September 9-10 there was a very At the time that Tianzhou 1 performed its final undocking from small manoeuvre which raised the orbit from 92.411 minutes to Tiangong 2 the latter was in a 92.379 minutes, 390-393 km orbit. 92.416 minutes. By September 12 Tianzhou had dropped to about There were no immediate orbital manoeuvres of the space labora- 90 degrees behind Tiangong as measured around the orbit (see Fig- tory which would now remain in solo flight, continuing its auto- ure 14) and on that day at 09:24 UT Tianzhou started its manoeu- matic scientific experiments until its orbital decay. vres which would bring the freighter back to Tiangong [34]. A minor milestone was reached on April 19, 2018 when the No details of the orbital manoeuvres are available but is appears orbit of Tiangong 2 decayed below the 46-circuits repeating orbit that the orbital period of Tianzhou was reduced to one below that altitude. of Tiangong because the video animation of the redocking shows the freighter increasing its altitude for the final approach and dock- It remains to be seen whether there will be further manoeuvres ing: the redocking came at 15:58 UT, about six and a half hours of Tiangong 2 before it is (hopefully) de-orbited at some future date. after the procedure had been initiated. The Chinese described this as being a “fast approach” docking, and it can be likened to the six 12 Launch and Landing Time Graphs hours launch-to-docking profiles of some Russian Soyuz and Pro- gress spacecraft flying to the International Space Station. Figure 16 is an update of Figure 11 in [4], although in truth only the landing date/time of Shenzhou 11 needed to be added to the On September 16 it was announced that the third propellant earlier graph. However, it can be the starting point for some other transfer from Tianzhou to Tiangong had been completed at 12:17 analysis. UT [35]. The operation had taken three days and 250 kg of propellant had been transferred.

The next day at 07:29 UT the commands to finally undockTian - zhou 1 from Tiangong 2 were transmitted and the undocking took place at 08:15 UT [36]: Tianzhou was “parked” 120 metres from Tiangong. The Chinese did not give any further details until Sep- tember 22 when it was announced that Tianzhou had been de-orbited at about 10:00 UT that day [37]: it was not clear whether this was the time of the de-orbit manoeuvre, the time of entry into the atmosphere or the final break-up of the freighter. The Chinese -in dicated that “the cargo ship twice put on the breaks, continuously lowering its altitude before burning-up in the atmosphere, all under precise control and close monitoring from the ground”. These orbital changes were not catalogued in the TLEs.

No problems have been reported – or even rumoured – with Fig. 16 Graph showing Shenzhou landing dates and times is an the Tianzhou 1 spacecraft and therefore one must classify this as update of Figure 11 in [4].

51 Phillip S. Clark

It will be noted from Figure 16 that Shenzhou 6 was the only crewed Shenzhou to land in darkness: if the launch of the mission had been delayed by two hours then the spacecraft would have come down at local dawn, as happened with Shenzhou 5. Natural- ly, the preference is for crewed spacecraft to return during daylight hours, while it can be noted that uncrewed spacecraft return in darkness: Shenzhou 3 is the uncrewed exception to this rule.

In the mid-1970s this writer prepared a similar graph for the recoveries of piloted Soyuz spacecraft and that showed that for successful missions the preference was for successful missions to end during the five hours before local sunset. Missions through to the end of 1978 were shown in Figure 1 of [38], this paper considering missions through to the end of 1978, as well as predicting the planned landing windows in 1979 and 1980.

By early 1977 this writer had developed a method of adding sloping lines to graphs similar to the figure referenced which would represent the notional launch times for Soyuz (and later Progress) missions to Salyut stations and these allowed significant information to be deduced, especially concerning the intended durations of missions believed to have been terminated earlier than intended.

The launch times would all lie on the sloping lines and the recoveries of the Soyuz spacecraft up to and including Soyuz 30 (re- covered before Soyuz 29) would come approximately one circuit after the notional launch time for the day. Starting with the descent of Soyuz 29 (with the crew launched on Soyuz 31), the landings would come about one circuit earlier than previously, with the landing time appearing on the “launch line”.

A more detailed review of the Soyuz landing times has been published as part of a separate paper [39].

Graphs similar to those in [38] for Salyut 6 can be produced for the missions flown to Tiangong 1 and Tiangong 2, although of course there are not nearly as many Chinese missions to show.

Tiangong 1 was operating in a 42.8 degrees inclination, 31-circuits repeating orbit, and this results in the orbital precession period being close to 52.1 days: this means that the launch time cy- cles approximately seven times a year, compared with six times for Salyut 6. Figures 17 (a-c) are the launch and landing time graphs for the three years that Tiangong 1 hosted visits (uncrewed and crewed) of Shenzhou spacecraft. It will be noted that the landing Fig. 17 Launch and landing times for Tiangong 2 missions in times come before the notional launch times for the descent days, (a) 2016 and (b) 2017: in the latter graph the points D1-D3 the differences being as follows: and U1-U3 mark the dates and times of Tianzhou 1 docking Shenzhou 8 156 minutes and undocking respectively with Tiangong 2. Interestingly, the Shenzhou 9 157 minutes three undockings came during a landing window, although Shenzhou 10 156 minutes since Tianzhou was unmanned this should not have been a consideration. Turning to the missions to Tiangong 2, there are, of course, only two launches and one descent to consider. Tiangong 2 was in the with the Soyuz-TM series. Perhaps when more statistical data are higher, 46-circuits repeating orbit and meant that the precession available from landings from the Tiangong Complex [40] it will be cycle was 54.1 days. Figures 18 (a-b) show the launches and the possible to refine this statement but it does appear that the Chinese recovery relating to Tiangong 2. TheShenzhou 11 descent again have adopted the criterion for a landing to be at any time during came before the notional launch time for the descent day, but the local daylight that was adopted starting with the Soviet Soyuz-TM interval was greater than seen on the Tiangong 1 missions: flights to the Mir Complex and continuing with the various Soyuz Shenzhou 11 173 minutes variants to the International Space Station. Going back to Figure 15, it is clear that the Chinese do not ap- 13 Summary of Mission Profile Data for Missions to pear to be operating as well-defined a “landing window” as was Tiangong 2 the Soviet Union for the Salyut missions, other than saying that the preference is for landings to come in local daylight: in this way the “landing window” is like that of the Russian missions starting 13.1 Repeating orbit patterns and mission durations

52 Operations with Tiangong 2

Fig. 18 Launch and landing times for Tiangong 2 missions in (a) 2016 and (b) 2017: in the latter graph, the points D1-D3 and U1-U3 mark the dates and times of Tianzhou 1 docking and undocking respectively with Tiangong 2. Interestingly, the three undockings came during a landing window, although since Tianzhou was unmanned this should not have been a consideration.

In [41] it was noted that the flight times (FT) of the missionsShen - zhou 3 through to Shenzhou 7 are given by the following relationship: A

FT = 21h 23m + 47.07222*N hours ([41] uses “k” instead of “N” as the multiplier) where N is an integer in the range 0...4. The first two Shenzhou spacecraft behaved differently in orbit compared with the later flights and therefore they are only approximate fits for this relationship.

For the three Shenzhou missions to Tiangong 1 the relationship Fig. 19 Graph for the three Shenzhou mission duration models was [42]: B A, B and C1/C2 which are discussed in section 13.2. The multipliers for models A and B are almost identical since the FT = 20h 54m + 47.08333*N hours target orbits were 31-circuit repeater orbits, but the multiplier for C1/C2 results in a greater slope for the line since it represents These two formulae are similar because in both cases the space- the 46-circuits repeater orbit. craft were heading towards the 31 circuits repeating orbit (repeating the ground track every two days), but the differences are because the missions to Tiangong 1 raised their orbits using multiple From the limited information available about the forthcoming burns, not a single burn about seven hours after launch. Tiangong Complex, it appears that the modular orbital station will probably use the 46 circuits repeating orbit pattern for at least part The situation for the Shenzhou 11 flight to Tiangong 2 was very of its operational lifetime [43] and therefore the accuracy (or oth- different because the orbital laboratory was in a higher orbit that erwise!) of the formula can be further tested when that happens. had a 46 circuits repeating orbit (after three days): in this case the following formula appears to be appropriate: C1 In April 2018 the Chinese suggested an orbit 393 km high for the Tiangong Complex. Allowing for the different “Earth models” FT = 21h 06m + 70.7242*(N-16/46) hours leading to different orbital altitudes being calculated, this might suggest the use of an orbit which repeats after 7 days less 177.5 As noted in section 7 of this paper, the Shenzhou manoeuvre tim- minutes: this would be an orbital period of 92.547 minutes and ings were very different from those seen on the missions toTian - a mean orbital altitude of 399 km – and of course a totally dif- gong 1, the 70.7242 hours multiplier reflects the longer interval of ferent repeating pattern compared with the orbits of the first two the repeating orbit cycle and the factor (N-16/46) reflects that the Tiangong modules. On the other hand, with higher orbits a small spacecraft recovery came on day two of the three days repeating change in altitude can result in a different repeating pattern, and cycle. one quickly reaches the area of “coincidence hunting”.

Formula C1 is written without the numerical terms being fully 13.2 “Longitude around the orbit” phasings for launches evaluated because the evaluation would hide the derivation of the numerical data: evaluating these terms gives: C2 In [42] it was noted that at the time that the three Shenzhou spacecraft were launched towards Tiangong 1, the orbital laboratory FT = -03h 30m + 70.7242*N hours was 172.7-174.0 degrees around its orbit (as measured from the ascending node of the orbit: ie, it was approaching the descending Figure 19 shows a graph with the formulae A, B and C1/C2 plot- node of the orbit): ted for different values of N. Shenzhou 8 172.7 deg

53 Phillip S. Clark

Shenzhou 9 174.0 deg May 28.557 42.78 deg 91.672 minutes 349–364 km 171 deg Shenzhou 10 173.6 deg At the time of the Shenzhou 11 launch, Tiangong 2 was 174.1 de- A “thought experiment” was conducted by this writer on April 20, grees around its orbit which fits the Tiangong 1 results. 2018. The most recent manoeuvre of Tiangong 2 at that time was in June 2017 and the resulting orbital period was the same as that When Tianzhou 1 was launched Tiangong 2 was 217.3 degrees for Tiangong 1 on January 9, 2016. Tiangong 1 took 2.25 years to around its orbit, which of course differs from the values seen for decay from this orbit and therefore if we assume no further ma- Shenzhou launches. In this case, one has to consider that two dif- noeuvres by Tiangong 2 then the orbital laboratory could be close ferent launch sites are being used. to orbital decay around September-October 2019 (with an error bound of perhaps +2 months because of uncertainties concern- Jiuquan launches are from a latitude of 40.96 deg N and some ing the Earth’s atmosphere and the attitude of the laboratory in simple spherical trigonometry shows that the launch site is 105.2 orbit). Of course, one would expect that the Chinese will be able degrees around the orbit from the ascending node of the orbit: to de-orbit Tiangong 2 towards the end of its orbital decay period taking the arithmetical mean Tiangong positions for the four Shen- and thus there should be no scares like there were for the re-entry zhou launches the laboratories were 173.6 degrees around the or- of Tiangong 1. bit, meaning a phasing relative to the launch site of (173.6–105.2 =) 68.4 degrees. The next steps in China’s space station programme will be the initial launches, assembly and operations of the module Tiangong In the case of the Wenchang launch of Tianzhou 1, the latitude of space station, the Tiangong Complex. The preliminary plans and a the launch site was 19.62 deg N and spherical trigonometry shows description of this station have been published elsewhere [40]. As that this is 150.5 degrees around the orbit and thus the phasing for a result of the launch failure of the second CZ-5 vehicle in 2017 the Tianzhou 1 launch relative to its launch site was (217.3 – 150.5 and resulting rescheduling of flights using that vehicle, the launch =) 66.8 degrees. This phasing is therefore essentially the same as of the first module in theTiangong Complex programme, Tianhe seen for the Jiuquan launches. 1, was expected in 2020 as of mid-2018. 14 Closing Comments Acknowledgements

Tiangong 2 remains in orbit as this paper is submitted for publica- Since this paper is primary concerned with orbital details of satel- tion, and one can hope that it will be de-orbited successfully rather lites, it would have been impossible to prepare without the Two- than suffering a failure that subsequently led to orbital decay like Line Orbital Elements (TLEs). The data are issued via the Space- Tiangong 1. Four objects relating to Tiangong 2 remain in orbit as Track website at https://www.space-track.org/. The staff associated this paper is finalised for submission and the most recent orbits are with the Space-Track site are to be thanked for the continued ac- (epochs are in 2018): cess to their data.

Tiangong 2 Please note that the interpretations (and even mis-interpre- May 28.576 42.79 deg 92.227 minutes 382–385 km 133 deg tations) of the data are the sole responsibility of this writer. Dif- Banxing 2 (deployed from Tiangong 2) ferent “Earth models” give different orbital altitudes when using May 28.142 42.78 deg 91.249 minutes 329–343 km 187 deg the TLEs. The data in this paper assume a spherical Earth with a radius of 6,378.145 km. Shenzhou 11 orbital module May 28.146 42.79 deg 91.607 minutes 352–355 km 278 deg As near live coverage of the Tiangong and Shenzhou missions can be found on the website NASASpaceFlight.com which is listed Silu 1 (deployed from Tianzhou 1) in the references: this site is an essential resource for people with a serious interest in space programmes.

References

The following links on the web site NASASpaceFlight.com are essential for 5. “China’s 1st space lab Tiangong 1 ends data service”, Xinhuanet, the times of events used in this paper, as well as being excellent resources 21 March 2016 (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016- for mission reports as the flight unfolded. 03/21/c_135209671.htm (accessed March 24, 2017). Shenzhou 11: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32123.540 6. “Tiangong 1 brought down by dysfunctional battery charger”, China Space Report, September 30, 2016: available online at https:// Tiangong 1: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14392.0 chinaspacereport.com/2016/09/30/tiangong-1-brought-down-by- Tiangong 2: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30224.340 dysfunctional-battery-charger/ (accessed June 7, 2017). Tianzhou 1: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35611.0 7. Andrew Jones, “China’s Tiangong-1 space lab to Fall to Earth between October 2017 and April 2018”, gbtimes, May 19, 2017: 1. Phillip S Clark, “The First Flights of China’sShen Zhou Spacecraft”, available online at http://gbtimes.com/china/chinas-tiangong-1- JBIS, 56, 160-174 (2003). space-lab-fall-earth-between-october-2017-and-april-2018 (accessed 2. Phillip S Clark, “The First Flights of China’s Shen Zhou Spacecraft – June 7, 2017). Part 2”, JBIS, 57, 196-208 (2004). 8. Phillip Clark, quoted in Andrew Jones, “China’s Tiangong 1 space 3. Phillip S Clark, “The First Flights of China’sShen Zhou Spacecraft – lab will soon reenter the atmosphere, but there’s no need to panic”, Part 3”, JBIS, 58, 103-107 (2005). Gbtimes, October 18, 2017: available online at https://gbtimes.com/ 4. Phillip S Clark, “Shenzhou Missions and The Flight of Tiangong 1 ”, chinas-tiangong-1-space-lab-will-soon-reenter-the-atmosphere-but- JBIS Space Chronicle, 70 Supplement 1, 22-39 (2017). theres-no-need-to-panic (accessed October 27, 2017).

54 Operations with Tiangong 2

9. “JFSCC tracks Tiangong 1’s re-entry over the Pacific Ocean”, Joint thread “ TZ-1 Tianzhou 1 first logistics cargo launch”: available Force Space Component Command release 01-180401, April 1, 2018. online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35611.0 10. Posting by “limen4” (online pseudonym) on February 19, 2016 on (accessed April 30, 2017). the thread “Chinese Launch Schedule”: available online at http:// 26. “3 cargo vehicles to serve nation’s space program”, China Plus, forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=5060.1380 (accessed April 29, 2017: available online at http://chinaplus.cri.cn/news/ March 24, 2017). china/9/20170429/3826.html (accessed September 18, 2017). 11. Posting by Phillip Clark on April 27, 2016 on the thread “Shenzhou 27. Posting by “Galactic Penguin SST” (a pseudonym) on April 20, 11”: available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. 2017 on the thread “ TZ-1 Tianzhou 1 first logistics cargo launch”: php?topic=32123.540 (accessed March 24, 2017). available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. 12. Posting by Phillip Clark on March 30, 2016 on the thread “Shenzhou php?topic=35611.0 (accessed April 30, 2017). 12”: available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. 28. Posting by “Galactic Penguin SST” (a pseudonym) on April 22, php?topic=39624.0 (accessed March 25, 2017). 2017 on the thread “ TZ-1 Tianzhou 1 first logistics cargo launch”: 13. Phillip S Clark, “Shenzhou Missions and The Flight of Tiangong 1 ”, available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ibid, section 4, 27-28. php?topic=35611.0 (accessed April 30, 2017). 14. Posting by Phillip Clark on September 15, 2016 on the thread 29. Posting by “Galactic Penguin SST” (a pseudonym) on April 23, “Tiangong 2”: available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ 2017 on the thread “ TZ-1 Tianzhou 1 first logistics cargo launch”: index.php?topic=30224.280 (accessed March 24, 2017). available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. php?topic=35611.0 (accessed April 30, 2017). 15. Posting by Phillip Clark on October 7, 2016 on the thread “Tiangong 2”: available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. 30. Posting by “Galactic Penguin SST” (a pseudonym) on April 27, php?topic=30224.280 (accessed March 24, 2017). 2017 on the thread “ TZ-1 Tianzhou 1 first logistics cargo launch”: available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. 16. “Tiangong 2 space lab enters preset orbit for docking with manned php?topic=35611.0 (accessed April 30, 2017). spacecraft”, Xinhua, September 25, 2016: available online at http:// news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-09/25/c_135712721.htm 31. “China’s cargo spacecraft completes second in-orbit refueling”, (accessed March 24, 2017). Xinhua, June 15, 2015: available online at http://news.xinhuanet. com/english/2017-06/15/c_136368681.htm (accessed June 15, 2017). 17. “China selects only two astronauts for new mission so they can extend time to 30 days in space”, South China Morning Post, June 13, 32. “China’s Tianzhou-1 completes second docking with space lab”, 2016: available online at http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/ Xinhua, June 20, 2017: available at http://www.chinadailyasia.com/ article/1974370 (accessed March 24, 2017). articles/15/164/11/1497923288493.html (accessed June 21, 2017). 18. Posting by “Beidou” (a pseudonym) on October 7, 2016 on 33. Zhao Lei, “Spacecraft undocking a success”,China Daily, June the thread “Shenzhou 11”: available online at http://forum. 22, 2017: available online at http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/ nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32123.540 (accessed March china/2017-06/22/content_29839832.htm (accessed June 25, 2017). 24, 2017). 34. “Chinese cargo spacecraft automated fast-docking with space 19. Posting by “Zubenelgenubi” (a pseudonym) October 16, 2016 l a b”, Xinhua, September 13, 2017: available online at http://news. on the thread “Shenzhou 11”: available online at http://forum. xinhuanet.com/english/2017-09/13/c_136604449.htm (accessed nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32123.540 (accessed March September 16, 2017). 24, 2017). 35. “China’s cargo spacecraft completes third in-orbit refueling”,Xinhua , 20. Posting by “Satori” (a pseudonym for Rui Barbosa) on October September 16, 2017: available online at http://news.xinhuanet.com/ 18, 2016 on the thread “Shenzhou 11 launch and docking”: english/2017-09/16/c_136614657.htm (accessed September 17, available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. 2017). php?topic=32123.540 (accessed March 24, 2017). 36. “China’s cargo spacecraft separates fromTiangong 2 space lab”, 21. Posting by “Astrophil” (a pseudonym) on November 15, 2016 on the China Daily.com, September 18, 2017: available online at http:// thread “Shenzhou 11 launch and docking”: available online at http:// europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-09/18/content_32139233.htm forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32123.540 (accessed (accessed September 27, 2017). March 24, 2017). 37. “China’s cargo spacecraft leaves orbit”,Xinhua , September 22, 22. Posting by Phillip Clark on March 13, 2017 on the thread “Tiangong 2017: available online at http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017- 2”: available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. 09/22/c_136630237.htm (accessed September 27, 2017). php?topic=30224.280 (accessed March 24, 2017). 38. Phillip S Clark, “Soyuz Missions to Salyut Stations”, SpaceFlight, 21, 23. Posting by “Galactic Penguin SST” (a pseudonym) on March 11, 259-263 (June 1979). 2017 on the thread “ TZ-1 Tianzhou 1 first logistics cargo launch”: 39. Phillip S Clark, “Happy Landings”, SpaceFlight, 60, 28-33 (July 2018). available online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. 40. Phillip S Clark, “China’s First Space Station Plans”, SpaceFlight, 59, php?topic=35611.0 (accessed March 25, 2017). 294-297 (August 2017). 24. Posting by “SmallKing” (a pseudonym) on April 9, 2017 on the 41. Phillip S Clark, “Shenzhou Missions and The Flight of Tiangong 1 ”, thread “ TZ-1 Tianzhou 1 first logistics cargo launch”: available ibid, 23. online at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35611.0 42. Phillip S Clark, “Shenzhou Missions and The Flight of Tiangong 1 ”, (accessed April 30, 2017). ibid, 38. 25. Posting by “Limen4” (a pseudonym) on March 23, 2017 on the 43. Phillip S Clark, “China’s First Space Station Plans”, ibid, 295.

55 Space Chronicle, Vol. 72, pp.56-61, 2019

SOVIET WEATHER WATCH: The Early Years of the Meteor Programme

BART HENDRICKX

This paper discusses the origins of the Soviet weather satellite forecasts”. However, the main emphasis was on the N-1 rocket and programme known as Meteor and describes the first years of piloted lunar and interplanetary spaceships. There was no men- its operations. It is an updated version of two earlier articles tion of weather satellites in any of the five supplements to the de- written by this author [1]. cree that set timelines for projects and assigned the organisations that would carry them out [5]. As in the December 1959 decree, 1 Introduction the reference to meteorological satellites had been no more than a declaration of intention. Despite the obvious benefits of performing meteorological observations from space, the Soviet weather satellite programme got off 2 The Formal Go-Ahead for Meteor to a slow start. The Soviet Union did not orbit its first experimental meteorological satellite until August 1964, more than four years A second government decree released on 23 June 1960 (nr. 715- after the United States had pioneered space-based meteorology 295) sanctioned several military space projects of Vladimir Chelo- with the launch of the Tiros-1 weather satellite on 1 April 1960. mei’s OKB-52 design bureau, but many of the design bureaus In fact, meteorology was only one of several practical space ap- remained pre-occupied with expensive piloted projects that had plications that had to take a backseat to prestigious piloted, lunar little military value. Responding to mounting pressure from the and planetary missions that constituted the mainstay of the early military community to revise the priorities of the Soviet space Soviet space programme. programme, the USSR Defence Council (a body chaired by So- viet leader Nikita Khrushchev and established in 1955 to make Even when the Soviet government adopted two major decrees decisions on key national security issues) convened on 9 January in 1959 and 1960 on the expansion of space activities, space-based 1961 to order a major review of space budgets, urging the design meteorology was mentioned only in passing. The first decree (nr. bureaus to cancel or delay several civilian space projects and shift 1388-6189), issued on 10 December 1959, included “meteorolog- their emphasis to nuclear missiles, military satellites and missile ical research” in a long list of goals to be accomplished in the fol- defence and space defence projects [6]. lowing years and called on the Academy of Sciences and several ministries to work out a more concrete long-term plan for space It was against this background that Defence Minister Rodion activities [2]. In the following months, several draft versions of Malinovskiy and several others sent a draft government decree the plan were drawn up. One of those, written among others by to the Central Committee on 28 February 1961 that among other OKB-1 chief designer Sergei Korolev in late May 1960, mentioned things envisaged experimental work in 1962-1963 on communi- weather forecasting as one of several “defence-related” space applications and weather satellites [7]. A revised version of the draft cations to be studied in 1960-1962. Presumably, the authors were decree, which set the more ambitious goal of actually flying ex- responding to a call made by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev dur- perimental meteorological and communications satellites in that ing a meeting with chief designers on 2 January 1960 to expand timeframe, was forwarded to the Central Committee on 22 August military activities in space. More specifically, the draft called for 1961 [8]. The decree (nr. 984-425), called “On the further devel- developing “aerodynamic satellites” to photograph weather pat- opment of military artificial Earth satellites“, was finally passed on terns and send back other meteorological information. Experi- 30 October 1961 and outlined the following goals for the Soviet mental satellites were to be launched in 1961-1963 using a rocket Union’s first meteorological satellite system: based on the R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile, while an operational system was to be orbited in 1962-1964 by the heavy-lift N-1 “to create in 1962-1963 an experimental meteorological rocket, which at that time was expected to have a payload capacity system to satisfy the interests of defence and the country’s of 40-50 tons to low Earth orbit [3]. Space-based meteorology was economy through the use of artificial Earth satellites and also mentioned in a letter accompanying what seems to have been the existing ground measuring complex to receive the first the final draft of the decree sent to the Central Committee of the experimental data on the photography of the cloud cover Communist Party on 31 May 1960 [4]. and ice fields and the measurement of radiation parameters of the Earth and atmosphere necessary to work out meth- The long-term space plan (covering the period 1960-1967) was ods of using them in weather forecasting [9].“ formalised by a government and Communist Party decree on 23 June 1960 (nr. 715-296). The cover letter of the decree literally re- Clearly, military applications of space-based weather observa- peated nine key goals that had been summed up for the period tions were an important, if not crucial factor in the Soviet decision 1960-1962 in the May 1960 draft version, including research on to press ahead with a meteorological satellite system. Images taken “systems for carrying out defence tasks by creating navigation sys- by meteorological satellites would not only be helpful in coordinat- tems and objects to perform reconnaissance, refine geophysical ing troop movements and strategic bombing campaigns, but could data, ensure distant communications and receive data for weather also ensure that photographic reconnaissance satellites wasted no

56 Soviet Weather Watch: The Early Years of the Meteor Programme precious film photographing cloud-covered regions. The decree appointed three customers for the weather satellite system: the VNIIEM Chief Directorate of the Hydrometeorological Service (GUGMS) (set up in 1936 to coordinate the work of the country’s meteorological and hydrological services), the Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Defence. Within the Ministry of Defence, responsibility for Meteor was entrusted to a branch of the Strategic Rock- et Forces known as the Third Directorate of the Chief Directorate of Reactive Armaments (GURVO), the precursor of the later Mil- itary Space Forces [10]. The combination of military and civilian tasks on a single satellite was not so much a conscious money-sav- ing effort, but a natural result of the organisational background of the Soviet space programme, which lacked the clear dichotomy between civilian and military space projects that emerged in the United States after the formation of NASA in 1958.

Other satellites approved by the decree were communications satellites in highly elliptical orbits for both civilian and military purposes (later called Molniya (“Lightning”)) as well as two small satellites (later named Strela (“Arrow”) and Pchela (“Bee”)) to relay data for the KGB and the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) using the so-called “store-dump” technique. While the Molniya satellites were assigned to Sergei Korolev’s OKB-1 design bureau, the weather satellites (later called Meteor) and the store-dump communications satellites were to be developed by the OKB-586 design bureau of Mikhail K. Yangel in Dnepropetrovsk (Ukraine). Established in 1954 to build a new generation of intermediate and later also intercontinental ballistic missiles using storable propellants (the R-12, the R-14 and the R-16), Yangel’s bureau had officially entered the space arena in August 1960, when a Com- munist Party and government decree tasked it with developing a Fig. 1 Andronik G. Iosifyan – nicknamed by colleagues “the lightweight rocket based on the R-12 (called 63S1) and a series chief elecrician of rocket technology”. of small scientific and military satellites (the “DS” series) that it would place into orbit. Earth. The solar panels extending from the container could be in- The 30 October 1961 decree also ordered Yangel’s bureau to dividually oriented towards the Sun [13]. develop a new launch vehicle to place the Meteor and the Strela/ Pchela satellites into orbit. Based on the bureau’s R-14 intermedi- 3 VNIIEM Takes Over Charge of Meteor ate range ballistic missile, it was called 65S3 or 11K65 and was later retrospectively dubbed the “Kosmos-3(M)” rocket. It was capable A change in plans came after the Soviet government issued a de- of launching satellites with masses ranging from 100 to 1500 kg cree on 16 April 1962 that significantly increased the workload into circular orbits (between 200 and 2000 km) or elliptical orbits of OKB-586. The already overtaxed bureau was ordered to build and would have to bridge the gap between Yangel’s smaller 63S1 a new ICBM called R-36 and start the preliminary design of a launch vehicle and the R-7 based rockets of OKB-1. OKB-586 had heavy-lift space launch vehicle called R-56, leaving little time and started working on the rocket on its own initiative in 1960 and had resources to continue work on the 65S3 rocket and the Meteor already produced a preliminary design in April 1961 [11]. and military data relay satellites. Later that same month, Yangel convened a meeting at his design bureau to discuss the possible Placed in overall charge of the new space projects (together transfer of all these projects to other design bureaus. Despite known under the code-name “Voskhod”) at OKB-586 was Vadim fierce opposition from his first deputy Vasiliy Budnik as well as Pappo-Korystin, working for a department led by Yangel’s deputy Kovtunenko, Yangel had already made up his mind on the transfer Vyacheslav Kovtunenko [12]. Although the October 1961 gov- before the meeting [14]. ernment decree marked the formal approval of the Soviet Union’s weather satellite programme, it would appear that engineers at the Yangel delegated further work on the 65S3 rocket and the Stre- Yangel bureau had started working on a design for such a satellite la/Pchela store-dump communications satellites to OKB-10, a almost a year earlier. Their proposal was based on an orientation design bureau that had gained independence in December 1961 system using the Earth’s gravitational field to keep the satellite after having existed for two years as Branch nr. 2 of OKB-1. It had pointed in the desired direction. This so-called gravity gradient been set up to oversee the serial production of Korolyov’s missiles stabilisation is achieved by the use of a long boom with a mass at the aligned Factory Nr. 1001 (later renamed the Krasnoyarsk at both ends. The mass nearest to Earth is in a slightly stronger Machine Building Factory) in the closed military townlet of Kras- portion of the gravity field and thereby naturally maintains the noyarsk-26 (some 60 km from the city of Krasnoyarsk in Siberia). vertical orientation of the spacecraft. In the Yangel bureau’s Me- However, the bureau’s chief designer Mikhail Reshetnev soon teor proposal, those two masses would be the second stage of the forged close ties with Yangel and agreed to take on the serial man- 65S3 rocket on one end and a container with meteorological in- ufacture of the R-14 missile. It was therefore logical for OKB-10 struments, batteries and solar panels on the other end. The boom to take over work on the R-14 based 65S3 launch vehicle. OKB-10 between the two would be deployed after orbit insertion, although (later renamed NPO PM and now known as ISS Reshetnev) also gas thrusters were to be used for initial orientation towards the got down to the development of the Strela and Pchela satellites and

57 Bart Hendrickx later took over Molniya from OKB-1, becoming the country’s sole manufacturer of communications satellites. VNIIEM

For Meteor Yangel turned to a Moscow-based organisation called the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Electrome- chanics (VNIIEM), which had maintained close ties with OKB- 586 for several years. Founded in 1941, the institute had delivered a wide variety of electric equipment for Korolyov’s and Yangel’s nuclear missiles, earning the institute’s leader Andronik G. Iosifyan the nickname of “chief electrician of rocket technology” (Fig.1).

In 1960 Iosifyan took the initiative to develop two technology demonstration satellites to test an electromechanical attitude control system and various other components for use in later satellites. Being on good terms with Iosifyan, Yangel used his influence in the Soviet government to have the satellites included in the 8 Au- gust 1960 government decree on the small DS satellites. They were officially known as KEL (Kosmicheskaya elektrotekhnicheskaya laboratoriya or Space Electrotechnical Laboratory), although the designers later referred to them as Omega (Fig. 2). Two of the satel- Fig. 2 The Omega satellite, built by the All-Union Scientific lites were launched as Kosmos-14 and Kosmos-23 by Yangel’s R-12 Research Institute of Electromechanics (VNIIEM). based 63S1 launch vehicle in April and December 1963. One of the satellites (Kosmos-14) was able to achieve three-axis stabilisation cil, headed by the Academy’s President Mstislav Keldysh, picked as planned and ground controllers were able to permanently point the VNIIEM design, presumably because the gravity-gradient sta- the fixed solar panels to the Sun by spinning the satellites around bilisation system offered little flexibility for pointing instruments their solar-oriented axis. The second satellite also carried the first to the Earth and was susceptible to torques caused by the tenuous Soviet infrared scanning radiometer, which may have been identi- upper layers of the atmosphere and solar radiation [23]. cal or similar to the one later flown on Meteor [15]. A third Omega satellite carrying experimental plasma engines was cancelled [16]. The transfer of Meteor-related technical documentation to VNIIEM began in May 1962 [24]. Various specialists from Yangel’s It would seem that VNIIEM started displaying interest in me- bureau were invited to VNIIEM to offer advice and some of them teorological satellites long before the October 1961 government eventually decided to stay at the institute to work full-time on Me- decree. According to one VNIIEM veteran, delegations from VNII- teor. The transfer of Meteor to VNIIEM and of the 65S3 rocket and EM began visiting OKB-586 sometime in late 1960 or early 1961 the Strela and Pchela satellites to OKB-10 was made official by a to study the Yangel bureau’s Meteor proposal [17]. VNIIEM’s en- government decree in August 1962, followed by an order from the gineers had reservations about the gravity gradient stabilisation Military Industrial Commission on 10 August 1962 [25]. Sources system, with which they had no experience at all. Iosifyan report- related to Yangel’s bureau claim that despite the transfer, OKB-586 edly invited the famous mathematician Sergei Mergelyan, a fellow retained overall responsibility for Meteor and there are indications Soviet Armenian, to have a critical look at the system, but despite that the bureau continued to perform that role until at least 1964- a positive recommendation from Mergelyan gave preference to an 1965 [26]. It is not clear exactly when VNIIEM became Meteor’s electromechanical stabilisation system similar to the one already overall systems integrator. under development for KEL/Omega [18]. However, Omega was conceived well before the Meteor programme and the idea to incor- VNIIEM was only one of two design bureaus outside the tradi- porate some of its systems into Meteor emerged only at a later stage. tional missile and aviation industry to be given responsibility for a satellite project. It was initially subordinate to the State Committee Yangel, preoccupied with ICBM work and not a strong sup- for Automatisation and Machine Building (GKAM) and subse- porter of building his own satellites in the first place, may have quently to the State Committee for Electrical Engineering (GKЕ), privately agreed with Iosifyan on the transfer of Meteor to VNII- which was reorganised in 1965 as the Ministry of the Electrical EM even before the October 1961 decree [19]. This is corroborated Engineering Industry (METP) [27]. by the fact that the decree placed VNIIEM in charge of building an electromechanical attitude control system for the satellites, indi- 4 Freezing the Meteor Design cating that a shift in design was already underway at the time [20]. There are also indications that Yangel reached a similar agreement For at least a while VNIIEM tried to keep Meteor within the pay- with Reshetnev for the 65S3 rocket and the Strela and Pchela satel- load capacity of the 65S3 rocket, but eventually the bureau was lites before the end of 1961 [21]. It would seem that Reshetnev was forced to switch to the more capable 8A92 rocket, a modification of offered to build Meteor as well, but refused to get involved because OKB-1’s “Vostok” booster originally designed to launch the Zenit-2 of the satellite’s complexity [22]. spy satellites. The preliminary design was approved by Keldysh’s MNTS-KI in May 1963 [28]. The first-generation Meteor (index Preliminary approval for the transfer was given by the Military 11F614) weighed about 1,280 kg and consisted of an upper cylinder Industrial Commission (VPK), a top government body overseeing containing the support systems (the so-called “bus”) and a some- the defence industry. However, because VNIIEM was a newcomer what thinner lower cylinder carrying the instrument packages to the satellite business, the VPK did order that both the OKB-586 (Fig.3). The satellites used a three-axis electromechanical stabilisa- and VNIIEM Meteor proposals be studied on a competitive basis tion system not unlike that tested by the Omega satellites. In other by the Interdepartmental Scientific-Technical Council for Space words, Soviet engineers elected to skip the spin-stabilised design Research (MNTS-KI), an advisory body under the aegis of the that their American counterparts had elected for the first Tiros sat- Academy of Sciences to oversee long-range space goals. The coun- ellites. As on Omega, excess momentum built up by the electric

58 Soviet Weather Watch: The Early Years of the Meteor Programme

TABLE 1 Standard Meteor(-1) instrument suite (data as given for Kosmos-122) Instrument No. of Spectral Bands Band Wavelengths (µM( Ground Swath (km) Ground Resolution (km) MR-600 TV camera 1 0.5–0.7 1000 1.25 x 1.25 Lastochka infrared radiometer 1 8-12 1100 15 x 15 Actinometric equipment 3 0.3-12 2500 50 x 50 flywheels was dumped with small gas thrusters, but part of this task was also accomplished with so-called magnetorquers, electric coils VNIIEM which interact with the Earth’s magnetic field in such a manner as to produce a magnetic torque around the satellite’s centre of gravity. However, the system was still experimental and the need to regularly use the gas thrusters was one of the main factors that limited the lifetime of the first-generation satellites. Extending from both sides of the upper cylinder were solar panels that were permanently pointed to the Sun with an autonomous steering mechanism.

Three payloads were on board the operational first-generation Meteor satellites (Fig.4). The first was a vidicon television system called MR-600 to provide mosaic images of clouds and the Earth’s surface in the visible part of the spectrum during daylight. It consisted of four cameras, two of which were back-ups. Three vid- KEY eo recorders were carried on board to store TV images for later 1. solar panel orientation system 5. MR-600 television camera 2. solar panel 6. magnetic sensor playback to the ground. Also on board was a scanning infrared 3. orbit control equipment 7. actinometric equipment radiometer called Lastochka (“Swallow”) to image clouds on the 4. antennas 8. Lastochka infrared radiometer nightside of the Earth and determine the temperatures of cloud tops and the underlying surface. The camera could also be used Fig. 3 First-generation Meteor satellite. to photograph clouds in daylight, making it possible to compare pictures of the same cloud structures taken by the optical camera. remote sensing instruments. The prototype satellites (known in- Finally, the satellites carried two narrow-angle and two wide-angle ternally as Meteor-M1) differed slightly from the later operational radiation detectors (referred to as “actinometric instruments”) to versions. The bus came in two slightly different versions depend- see how much of the solar radiation received by the planet is re- ing on the season in which the satellites were flown, apparently be- flected back into space (“Earth albedo radiation”) and how much cause the different Sun angles required adaptations to the attitude thermal energy is emitted by the planet itself (“Earth radiation”). control system. Also, the payload compartment was not as wide These are important factors in the Earth’s radiation budget, which as on the operational satellites. However, the satellites do seem to to a great extent shapes climate and weather patterns [29]. See also Tables 1 and 2. 5 Test Flights

Prior to being declared operational, the Meteors were to perform a series of experimental flights to test the spacecraft bus and the GIDROMETEOIZDAT

TABLE 2 System manufacturers System Design bureau Ministry* attitude control, solar panel VNIIEM GKE orientation, thermal regulation satellite hull, gas thrusters, OKB-586 GKOT antennas power supply VNIIT/NIAI GKE telemetry, relay of images and OKB MEI Minvuz meteorological data, Rubin-D back-up orbit control system Krab orbit control system NII-648 GKRE MR-600 TV camera VNII-380 GKRE Lastochka infrared radiomete NII-10 GKRE actinometric equipment, optical TsKB-589 GKOT sensors for attitude control * GKOT – State Committee for Defence Technology; GKE – State Committee for Electrical Engineering; GKRE – State Committee for Radio Electronics; Minvuz – Ministry of Higher and Secondary Special Education Fig. 4 Meteor instrument compartment.

59 Bart Hendrickx have carried the full complement of meteorological instruments flown on the operational satellites [30]. The test flights were to be carried out under the supervision of a State Commission headed by Kerim Kerimov, who was replaced in 1965 by Viktor Shcheulov after having been named head of the State Commission for the GIDROMETEOIZDAT piloted Soyuz programme.

The 30 October 1961 government decree had called for the first test flight of Meteor to be conducted in the second quarter of 1963, with operational flights to follow in the third quarter of that year. Iosifyan’s team was under tremendous pressure to launch the first satellites as soon as possible because of international agreements on the exchange of meteorological data signed in the early 1960s. The Soviet Union had pledged to build one of three so-called World Meteorological Centres under the World Weather Watch programme initiated by the World Meteorological Organisation (under the auspices of the UN) in 1963. The Soviet Union and the United States had also reached a bilateral agreement on exchanging weather satellite data by establishing a direct communications link between the World Meteorological Centres in Moscow and Washington by mid-1964. If it had not been for these agreements, the Meteor satellites would probably have flown even later than they eventually did.

In order to meet the goal of orbiting the first satellite in 1964, it was decided that the two first satellites would use a crude attitude control system based largely on that developed for Omega. This meant that engineers knew from beforehand that three-axis stabilisation was unlikely to be achieved on these missions, although they did hope to test the new flywheels and the gas thrusters [31].

Eventually, the first prototype Meteor satellite was delivered to the Baikonur cosmodrome in May 1964 and launched as Kosmos-44 on 28 August 1964, which by sheer coincidence also happened to be the day that the United States launched its first three-axis stabilised weather satellite (called Nimbus). The mission made it possible to test critical on-board systems, but, as expected, obtained limited Fig. 5 Assembled Meteor satellite. data due to problems with the attitude control system. Kosmos-44 is said to have recorded changes in the “thermal radiation of the tem. The first of the pair was launched as Kosmos-144 on 28 Feb- Earth’s atmosphere” and apparently also made some low-quality ruary 1967, followed on 27 April by Kosmos-156. There were two pictures of cloud features. A fault in the rocket’s control system had notable differences with the previous launches. They were staged also left the satellite in an unplanned orbit (615x857 km), a much from the northern cosmodrome of Plesetsk, which had seen its higher apogee than subsequent Meteors [32]. first space launch in March 1966, and marked the introduction of a slightly improved rocket called 8A92M. The move to Plesetsk The second satellite, Kosmos-58, didn’t fly until February 1965 was made after the launch pad used for the Meteor launches at and like its predecessor was a rather crude version of the actual Baikonur had been severely damaged in December 1966 by the Meteor satellite. It wasn’t until the third mission (Kosmos-100) explosion of a rocket carrying the second unmanned Soyuz vehi- in December 1965 that three-axis stabilisation was achieved, but cle [34]. However, it would probably have been made regardless other problems meant that no weather pictures were returned to of the accident because the location of Plesetsk made it possible Earth. That objective was accomplished by the fourth satellite (Kos- to change the satellites’ inclination from 65° to 81.2° and thereby mos-118), launched in May 1966, but because of problems with the provide better coverage of Soviet territory. solar array drive mechanism only a very limited amount of pictures were received and they were never publicly released [33]. Although the two satellites were launched under the “Kosmos” cover name, the Soviet media announced in early June that to- The next step in the programme came on 25 June 1966 with the gether with their ground stations they formed “the experimental launch of Kosmos-122, which was attended by CPSU General Sec- space meteorology system Meteor”, which was the first public use retary Leonid Brezhnev and French president Charles de Gaulle, of the name. The launch of Kosmos-156 was timed such that its the first Westerner allowed to visit Baikonur. It was not until about orbital plane was spaced 95° from that of Kosmos-144, meaning two months after the launch that the Russians began providing de- that both satellites passed over the same part of the Earth with an tails about the satellite, the first time that the existence of a Soviet interval of six hours. The two satellites enabled meteorologists to meteorological satellite system was publicly acknowledged. The obtain data about weather patterns over half of the planet in one satellite remained operational for four months. day’s time. The simultaneous operation of two satellites was a major test for Soviet ground stations, which now had to quickly pro- The successful mission of Kosmos-122 paved the way for the cess telemetry and meteorological information from one satellite next step in the programme, namely to fly two meteorological sat- before the other one came within range. Of particular interest to ellites in parallel, as would later be the case in the operational sys- meteorologists was the information obtained by the two satellites

60 Soviet Weather Watch: The Early Years of the Meteor Programme over regions with few weather stations. For instance, data from the manufacture of the satellites was turned over in 1966 to the fac- Kosmos-144 and 156 were used to determine the position of ice in tory aligned with the Yangel bureau in Dnepropetrovsk, where all the Arctic Ocean as the navigation season began. the remaining first-generation Meteors were built [35] (Fig.5).

Three more Meteors with Kosmos designations (184, 206, 226) The first-generation Meteors flew until 1977 and were succeed- were flown in 1967 and 1968. After a launch failure on 1 February ed by several more advanced types of weather satellites: Mete- 1969 (the only one in the entire history of the Meteor programme), or-2 (1975-1993), Meteor-3 (1985-1994) and a single Meteor-3M the first satellite announced by the TASS news agency as “Meteor” (2001). VNIIEM also launched a single geostationary weather sat- went into orbit on 26 March 1969. Despite built-in redundancy, ellite (Elektro) in 1994, but eventually had to turn over that work there were repeated failures of electronic systems aboard the first to the NPO Lavochkin design bureau, which has since placed two satellites, meaning that the average lifetime was only about 6 to 8 geostationary weather satellites into orbit under the name Elek- months. This implied that replacement satellites had to be launched tro-L (in 2011 and 2015). However, VNIIEM has retained respon- on a regular basis to replenish the Meteor constellation. Since sibility for low-orbiting weather satellites and after a long lull in VNIIEM did not have the capacity to serially produce the satellites, launches introduced the new Meteor-M series in 2009.

References 1. B. Hendrickx, “A History of Soviet/Russian Meteorological Satellites”, 21. K. Smirnov-Vasilyev (ed.), 40 kosmicheskikh let. NPO PM, Space Chronicle, 1/2004, pp. 53-102 ; B. Hendrickx, “Birth of the Zheleznogorsk, p. 20, 35, 1999. Meteors (in Russian)”, Novosti kosmonavtiki, 6/2004, pp. 69-70, 22. V. Chub, op. cit. ; S. Golotyuk, “Letters to the editor ‘(in Russian)”, 7/2004, pp. 62-63. Novosti kosmonavtiki, 17/1997, p. 49. 2. S. Kudryashov (ed.), Sovetskiy kosmos, Vestnik Arkhiva Prezidenta 23. “From the Omega Spacecraft to the Meteorological Systems“,Russian Rossiyskoi Federatsii, Moscow, pp. 148-165, 2011. Space Bulletin, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1998, p. 4. 3. G. Vetrov (ed.), S.P. Korolev i ego delo, Nauka, Moscow, pp. 288, 295- 24. S. Konyukhov, Rakety i kosmicheskiye apparaty konstruktorskogo 301, 1998. byuro Yuzhnoye, GKB Yuzhnoye, Dnepropetrovsk, 2000, p. 214. 4. S. Kudryashov, op cit., pp. 203-204. 25. S. Konyukhov, Prizvnany vremenem, p. 644 ; L. Makridenko et 5. Ibid, pp. 231-253. al., “The technological weather satellite Meteor-M1” (in Russian), 6. Ibid, pp. 298-299. Voprosy elektromekhaniki, 2/2013, p. 54. Available online at http:// jurnal.vniiem.ru/text/133/53-59.pdf (Last Accessed 26 February 7. Ibid, pp. 306-307. 2019). 8. Ibid, pp. 430-431. 26. See for instance : V. Pappo-Korystin, “A great, strong and honest 9. Ibid, pp. 433-450. man (in Russian)“, in: N. Anfimov (ed.), Generalnyy konstruktor : 10. V. Favorskiy, V. Meshcheryakov, Voyenno-kosmicheskiye sily, kniga 1, kniga o Vladimire Fedoroviche Utkine, TsNIIMash, Korolev, 2003, pp. Izdatelstvo Sankt-Peterburgskoi tipografii, Moscow, 1997, p. 82. 224-225; V. Pappo-Korystin, “A brave leader and good mentor (in 11. S. Konyukhov (ed.), Prizvany vremenem. Ot protivostoyaniya k Russian)“, in : S. Konyukhov (ed.), Mikhail Yangel : vospominaniya mezhdunarodnomu sotrudnichestvu, Art-Press, Dnepropetrovsk, p. o pervom glavnom konstruktore KB Yuzhnoye, GKB Yuzhnoye, 122, 1998. Dnepropetrovsk, pp. 126-129, 2006. 12. V. Stepnevskiy, Yu. Alekseyenko, “A man with an interesting fate (in 27. GKE (Gosudarstvennyy komitet po elektrotekhnike) is not to be Russian)“, article published online at space.com.ua/pdf/V.N.Pappo- confused with GKET (Gosudarstvennyy komitet po elektronnoi Korystin.doc (Last Accessed 26 February 2019). tekhnike) or the State Committee for Electronics, which in 1965 was turned into the Ministry of the Electronics Industry (MEP). 13. Author’s telephone interview with VNIIEM veteran Yuriy Trifonov, The other “outsider“ was KB-1, which in 1965 became the lead 7 July 2003 ; S. Konyukhov, op. cit., p. 114 ; V. Khodnenko, “The first design bureau for the country’s ocean reconnaissance satellites, early weather satellites (in Russian)“, Voprosy elektromekhaniki, 5/2011, warning satellites and anti-satellite systems. p. 12. Available online at http://jurnal.vniiem.ru/en/text/124/11.pdf (Last Accessed 26 February 2019). 28. L. Makridenko et al., “The technological weather satellite Meteor-M1”, p. 54. 14. S. Konyukhov, op. cit., p. 115. 29. P. Rumyantsev, “The Meteor space system (in Russian)“, 15. L. Makridenko et al., “The first steps in VNIIEM’s space activities : Kosmonavtika, Astronomiya, 10/1983, pp. 13-16. From Omega to Meteor (in Russian)”, in: M. Pervov (ed.), Istoriya razvitiya otechestvennykh avtomaticheskikh kosmicheskikh apparatov, 30. L. Makridenko et al. “The technological weather satellite Stolichnaya Entsiklopediya, Moscow, pp. 135-137, 2015. Meteor-M1”, pp. 53-59. 16. V. Khodnenko, “The work of VNIIEM in studying, developing and 31. Author’s interview with Yuriy Trifonov. using electric rocket engines” (in Russian), Voprosy elektromekhaniki, 32. VPK decree dated 28 October 1964 (obtained by Asif A. Siddiqi at 2/2016, p. 30. Available online at http://jurnal.vniiem.ru/text/151/30- the Russian State Archive of the Economy (RGAE)) ; S. Konyukhov, 41.pdf (Last Accessed 26 February 2019). Prizvany vremenem, p. 120 ; V. Yefimov, “The beginning of the 17. Author’s interview with Yuriy Trifonov. nation’s meteorological television (in Russian)”, in: V. Kupriyanov, M. Okhochinskiy (ed.), Trudy sektsii istorii kosmonavtiki i raketnoi 18. V. Chub, “How we started making the weather (in Russian)”, article tekhniki (vypusk pervyy), Baltiyskiy gosudarstvennyy tekhnicheskiy published online on 7 June 2011 at https://www.gorod.dp.ua/ universitet, St.-Petersburg, pp. 36-38, 2016. news/63612 (Last Accessed 26 February 2019). 33. Author’s interview with Yuriy Trifonov. 19. Author’s interview with Yuriy Trifonov. 34. V. Khodnenko, “The first weather satellites”, p. 14. 20. S. Kudryashov, op. cit., p. 438. 35. “From the Omega Spacecraft to the Meteorological Systems”, p. 5.

61 Space Chronicle, Vol. 72, pp.62-65, 2019

CHINA’S PATHFINDER ASTRONAUTS

BERT VIS

In early 1997, there were reports saying that a group of Chi- nese had arrived in the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center (GCTC) near Moscow, to undergo the basic cosmonaut training course. Further details were not known, and when British space NEIL DA COSTA NEIL DA enthusiast Neil Da Costa was given a tour in May of that year, he asked the guide if she had more information. Unfortunately, she had not, but she managed to find out that the Chinese were staying in the same hotel as Da Costa’s tour group.

The rest of the group consisted of young Russians and as true chauvinists, their interest was of course limited to Russian cosmonauts. Da Costa’s interest was broader though, and therefore he got up at the break of day the next morning and sat in the lobby of the hotel, hoping to run into the Chinese. He was lucky and managed to meet them, having the scoop of being the first to make some portrait pictures and even score a few autographs. Fig. 1 Li Qinglong (left) and Wu Ji in front of the Orbita Hotel It became clear that there were only two Chinese undergoing the in Star City, May 1997. cosmonaut course, but given the language barrier, that was as far as he could get when it came to getting details about the training. Nei- ther of the two spoke any English, and besides, they had to report to are called in China, took place between December 1995 and May the training center for the day’s activities, so had to carry on. 1997, when twelve pilots from the Chinese air force (PLAAF) were chosen to undergo astronaut training for missions on the Shen- The fact that the two astronaut candidates had not counted on a zhou spacecraft (see Space Chronicle, Vol 72 suppl.1). However, the meeting with a hobbyist like Da Costa then and there didn’t dawn successful candidates were only sworn in on 5 January 1998, and on him at the time. However, in the years following the meeting it that date is considered to be the official date of selection. Wu Jie became clear that the Chinese were following the same policy the and Li Qinglong, however, were pre-selected already in Novem- old Soviets had done when it came to their cosmonauts in training: ber of 1996, but were considered to be part of the selection group names, portrait photos and biographical data were kept secret un- nonetheless. til they flew their first mission. The meeting had been truly unique. From the beginning, the Chinese closely watched how the Not even the names of the two were clear at the time. The Rus- Russians were organizing their space program and copied that as sians had more or less phonetically written the names into Cyril- much as they could. In many cases, things would be improved be- lic, after which that had been converted to Latin alphabet. That fore applying them, but in some cases, it was a matter of almost resulted in “U Tse”, and “Li Tsinlun”. It would take quite some time carbon-copying how things were done in Russia. A good example before the Chinese themselves finally converted the Chinese char- of this was the plethora of pre-launch traditions that are followed acters to English. The correct transcription of their names was Wu in the Russian manned space program. Like their Russian coun- Jie and Li Qinglong. terparts, Chinese astronauts will sign the door of their quarters when leaving them on launch day. There’s a tree-planting ceremo- It was also not clear what the purpose of the training was to ny, and before boarding the bus to the launch pad they report to begin with. Initially, it was assumed that the two were training for the commander that they are ready to undertake the mission. At one of them to fly to the Mir space station as a crewmember of a that time they are already wearing their spacesuits, which look like Soyuz. But after a year, the Chinese finished the training course one-on-one copies of the Russian Sokol suits. It is not known if and returned to China. So who were these two and what were they they also follow Russia’s most famous tradition: peeing against the doing? rear wheel of the bus on the way to the launch pad.

1 Chinese astronaut selection Of course, the Chinese had no experience in how to train astronauts, and therefore they signed an agreement with the Russians The first Chinese astronaut selection, or hangtianyuans as they for two people to follow the complete basic cosmonaut training course “OKP” at the GCTC. However, the Chinese asked the Rus- sians to limit the course, that normally lasted up to four years, to This paper was first presented at the British Interplanetary Society Sino- only one year. The Russians were quite skeptical if that could be Russian Technical Forum in London on 21 June 2015. accomplished in such a short time but the Chinese insisted on it.

62 China’s Pathfinder Astronauts

Fig. 2 Li Qinglong (left) and Wu Jie’s official portraits. Fig. 3 Li (left) and Wu during Russian language training.

The reason for this is not clear. It may have been a matter of financ- them would probably ever fly in space, or even get a crew assign- es, but it may also have to do with the schedule the Chinese had to ment to begin with. But that too turned out to be incorrect. begin manned missions. As far as is known at this time, Li Qinglong indeed never 2 Training begins trained in a crew, but when the crews for the second Chinese manned spaceflight, Shenzhou-6, became known through pictures Whatever the case, in the end the Russians gave in and Wu and Li in the press, it turned out that the backup crew consisted of Zhai began their training on 11 November 1996. That training would Zhigang and Wu Jie. It was remarkable though, that Wu was as- consist of three phases: signed as flight-engineer rather than commander. Zhai would go on to become commander of Shenzhou-7, but for Wu this would Phase 1 – from 15 November 1996 to 15 March 1997, Wu and be his only crew assignment. Li took Russian language lessons Over the years it became clear that Wu and Li had been as- Phase 2 – between 15 March and 18 July 1997, they underwent tronauts themselves and had not, as had been speculated in 1997, some 700 hours of general cosmonaut training, that consisted of seven parts: 1 – general spaceflight theory 2 – biomedical training 3 – technical training 4 – survival training at sea and near the Arctic circle 5 – stellar navigation 6 – basic EVA training 7 – general flight training in simulators, centrifuge training and zero-G training in GCTC’s Ilyushin-76MDK

Phase 3 – between 18 July and 14 November 1997, they underwent specialist training.

In phase 3, Wu concentrated on docking techniques and qualified as Soyuz TM commander. Li specialized in EVA training and qualified as Soyuz TM flight-engineer.

Finally, after having taken their exams, in December 1997, both Chinese were awarded the “International Cosmonaut Certificate” which was presented by GCTC commander Pyotr Klimuk. He complimented both men with the high scores they got in the tests. On a scale from one to five, they had scored an average of 4.55. On the subject of docking operations, Wu had even scored 4.98. 3 Return to China

As said, initially it had been thought that one of the two would be making a flight on a Soyuz, but that turned out to be incorrect, and soon it was assumed that the two had taken this course to gather information that would have to be the basis for the Chinese astronaut training program. And even though there was some speculation that either Wu or Li would probably be the crew for the first Chinese spaceflight, there were also voices that said that neither of Fig. 3 Sea survival training . 63 Bert Vis merely been trainers. Apart from Wu’s backup crew assignment, pictures of both men in spacesuits, or in the same blue flight over- alls as known astronauts, were published of training activities, or during official functions. And when Somalia issued a series of nine stamps with portraits of Chinese astronauts, they showed the seven that had flown up to then, and Wu and Li as numbers eight and nine.

Detailed biographical information has never been released but the snippets that were published by Chinese news services on the internet, give a little bit more information on the two.

Wu Jie was born on 26 October 1963 in Zhengzhou, Henan Province. His father Wu Yuemeng passed away in 2004 . Since the one-child policy was not in effect in 1963, Wu has two younger brothers, Wu Ge and Wu Zhan. Wu Jie went to primary school in Xiaogan and secondary school in Xingjang. In September 1980 he enrolled in the PLAAF Engineering College in Xian from which he graduated in 1987. He then got training at the 3rd PLAAF Flight College in Jinzhou to become a fighter pilot. Later, he would become commander of a training base for pilots, and deputy divi- sion commander. He became a member of the Communist Party in 1985. In October 2005, he had logged some 1200 hours of flying time and held the rank of Senior Colonel, a rank that equals Brig- adier-General in the west. Fig. 5 Li (left) and Wu on their way for their final exams, Li Qinglong was born in August 1962 in Dingyuan, Anhui November 1997. Province. After graduating from secondary school, in September 1980 he began studying at the PLAAF Missile Institute in Xian. Upon graduation in 1984, like Wu Jie he began flight training at became a member of the Communist Party in July 1984. the 3rd PLAAF Flight College in Jinzhou, and later served as fighter pilot, squadron commander, political instructor, deputy chief of Only in January 2018, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary staff, and in other positions. Having logged some 1300 hours, Li of the first astronaut selection group, the names, official portraits, is also a Senior Colonel. He is married and has one daughter. He and a few skimpy biographical data of the six members who had not made a spaceflight appeared in the Chinese news media. Five of these six had retired on 13 March 2014, and among them were Wu Jie and Li Qinglong. The sixth, Deng Qingming, was still eligi- ble for a flight assignment.

In spite of all their work, and the undoubtedly challenging job that Wu and Li had performed when they underwent the basic cosmonaut training course in Russia, they would never see the re- ward of flying in orbit. And so, it seems that Neil Da Costa will remain the only western space enthusiast who can say he actually met and shook hands with these two remarkable individuals.

Fig. 6 GCTC commander Pyotr Klimuk addresses both Chinese prior to their final exams and (right) Wu Fig. 4 Winter survival training took place near the Arctic circle. Jie’s cosmonaut certificate.

64 China’s Pathfinder Astronauts

Fig. 7 TheShenzhou -6 backup crew: Wu Jie (left) and Zhai Zhigang.

65 Space Chronicle, Vol. 72, pp.62-65, 2019

CHANGING SHIFT ON ISS*

DAVID J. SHAYLER

“Even after the station was completed, a number of commuting of the Soyuz TM and a significant increase over the design lifetime rocket ships would be necessary to bring need supplies as well as of the original Soyuz 7K-T ferry craft (1973-1981) of about 90 days replacements for the crew.” which had limited earlier Salyut expeditions.

So wrote Frank Ross Jr. in his 1956 book Space Ships & Space Trav- To remain at the forefront of space station operations a num- el [1]. That statement is still relevant today, over sixty years after ber of upgrades to the basic Soyuz design introduced in 1966 have these words were written. At the International Space Station one ensured its longevity and its place in spaceflight history as the of the fleet of current ‘commuting rocket ships’, the Russian Soyuz, longest serving human spacecraft. The first major upgrade, -des has supported the constant manning of the orbital facility for near- ignated Soyuz T (“Transportny” or “Transport” 1979-1986) ferry ly twenty years. Soyuz has been an orbital workhorse for the long and its TM (“Transportnyi Modifitsirovannyi” or “Transport Mod- term occupation of space stations for almost five decades, while ified” 1986-2002) follow on, featured an increased orbital storage addressing a key factor in space station longevity – the ability to [powered down] lifetime of up to 180 days, providing a useful six exchange resident crews alleviating the need to vacate the station months before it required exchanging for a fresher craft [4]. The and adopt a power down mode. In this task the Soyuz has per- capability of Soyuz was further expanded with the introduction formed admirably, but just how does a resident crew hand over to of the TMA (“Transportnyi Modifitsirovannyi Antropometrich- a new team without interrupting the smooth running of the orbital eskii” or “Transport Modified Anthropometric” 2003-2012) craft, programme or station systems? To explain, this paper briefly re- followed by the Soyuz TMA-M (TMA- “Modernizirovannyy” or flects on using the Soyuz as a resident crew transport vehicle, how “Modernized” 2010-2016), both of which featured an orbital stor- the development of an administration system is employed allocat- age capability of up to 200 days. From 2016 this has been increased ing crew time for periods of work, rest and exercise, how a system slightly to 210 days with the Soyuz MS (“Modernizirovannyy Siste- of staged handovers has provided crews with the skills to continue my” or “Modernised Systems”) variant (Fig. 1). occupation for two decades and how key events have become part of the tradition on board ISS. Space station resident crews

Planning the exchange of expeditions For over eighteen years two types of crews have occupied the station (excluding the 37 Space Shuttle Assembly crews). In Russia In the 1980s the intention from the start was to ferry the resident the main missions are designated “Ekspeditsya Osnovnoi” (Prin- crews to and from the internationally supported Freedom Space ciple Expedition or “EO” – while NASA prefers the term “In- Station by means of the Space Shuttle. Half a decade later, following crement”) while the shorter flights are designated “Ekspeditsya a major redesign to halt a spiralling budget and increasing design Poseshchenya” (Visiting Mission or “EP”). From November 2000 complexity, Freedom was re-born as the International Space Sta- a permanent crew presence has been achieved on ISS by means of, tion with Russia as a full partner. From this emerged the suggestion at the time of writing, 59 rotational expeditions. to utilize the venerable Soyuz spacecraft as an economic and available solution to serve as a 3-person crew transport vehicle and also This method of keeping a station occupied was pioneered on fulfil the role of a stand by Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV), especially Soyuz between 1977 and 1999 by the Soviet Union during the Saly- when the cost of developing a purpose built vehicle escalated [2]. ut 6, 7 & Mir programmes. On those stations cosmonauts regularly flew visiting missions with many international crews to successive When the first four expedition crews were named in November resident expeditions, exchanged older Soyuz craft for fresher vehi- 1997 [3], a change was revealed in that a three-person station crew cles (Fig 2.), moved Soyuz ferry craft to different docking ports to launched on a Soyuz would return via Shuttle and those delivered facilitate new arrivals, occasionally exchanged members of the main on the Shuttle would land on Soyuz thus: crew or assigned cosmonauts across more than one expedition. EO Launch Land 1 Soyuz Shuttle When the first three-person resident crew were launched to 2 Shuttle Soyuz the ISS on-board Soyuz TM-31 in October 2000 the plan was to 3 Soyuz Shuttle leave the Soyuz docked to the station for the next main crew when 4 Shuttle Soyuz they arrived on the STS-102 mission in March 2001. This was the same mission which returned with the EO-1 crew. Though this With planned expedition times of between up to four months rotation profile had followed the plan established some years be- (120 days) this was well within the safe orbital lifetime capabilities fore, it proved to be the only time the original Soyuz/Shuttle or Shuttle/Soyuz rotation was not, barring accidents, followed as originally envisaged. * Updated and expanded from the original presentation at the 35th BIS Sino/Russian Technical Forum, 7th June, 2014. But why? It seemed such a sudden change of profile without

66 Changing Shift on the ISS

Fig. 2 When a Soyuz crewmember returns in a different vehicle to which they were launched, their personal form fitting Kazbek seat liner has to be transferred to the new Soyuz (seen here during the Soyuz 36 visiting mission to Salyut 6 in 1980).

service module, Zvezda. NASA was also struggling to ensure that the Shuttle fleet was fit to fly, having overcome a fleet-wide inspec- tion and maintenance of electrical wiring and potentially serious fuel leak in the SSME experienced during STS-93. When Shuttle flights resumed there was more availability of seats on the Shuttle to launch and return Expedition crews while Roscosmos focused on providing the Soyuz primarily as stand-by crew rescue vehicle, occasionally replacing the vehicles every few months in what was described as a short taxi mission under the command of an experienced Russian cosmonaut. The opportunity was also taken to make the other two seats available to spaceflight participants or representatives of partner agencies. All this changed in 2003 with the loss of Columbia. With the Shuttle grounded, the primary role of Soyuz became one of expedition crew transport, then when the Shuttle returned to flight there was a defined time before it was permanently grounded, making it imperative to complete the assembly of the ISS with an increase of the core Shuttle crew from four to at least six astronauts, each with an extensive EVA, robotics or logistics programme. As a result there simply were no seats left to carry the three-person resident crew as well.

Between 2001 and 2002 a further four three-person resident crew exchanges were conducted by means of the American Space Shuttle, with the Soyuz ‘lifeboat’ regularly exchanged in four short-term visiting ‘taxi’ missions, but the loss of Columbia and her crew in early 2003 resulted in the immediate grounding of the Shuttle fleet while the accident was investigated and remedial ac- tions implemented. NASA and its partners were suddenly faced with a difficult decision. Either abandon the partly built station (called de-crewing), or crew the facility with a minimal two-person crew (termed a ‘caretaker’ crew) to ensure critical systems are maintained and operate a reduced science programme until such time the Shuttle would resume assembly and reach a point where the resident crew could be expanded.

Fortunately that early decision to fly Soyuz craft as a potential rescue craft now paid off. In October 2002 the fourth Taxi crew had delivered the first TMA version of Soyuz to the station which had a 20 day longer orbital lifetime than the earlier Soyuz TM ensuring not only a much longer on-orbit safety margin but with increased internal capacity for the physical size of crewmembers. After handing over to the EO-7 ‘caretaker’ crew [6] the Expedi- tion 6 trio became the final team to be launched on the Shuttle Fig. 1 Soyuz has been the mainstay of space station crew but return on a Soyuz. Meanwhile the EO-7 crew became the first transport for nearly 50 years. of eight two-person (one Russian and one American) caretaker crews over the next three years. From Soyuz TMA-3/EO-8 in 2003 apparently any formal new announcement. Further research by through Soyuz TMA-16/EO-21/22 (and except TMA15/EO20/21) the author has revealed there was not some major programmat- in 2009, the third seat on Soyuz was taken by a representative of a ic decision to change the way resident crews journeyed to or re- partner agency (mostly ESA), or Spaceflight Participants, who all turned from the station. The driving factor was the availability of returned with the outgoing resident crew after about a week to ten launch vehicles and spacecraft combined with the flow of the flight days on the station. schedule at the time [5]. During 1999/2000 there had been a slip to the assembly schedule due to the launch delay of the Russian Between 2006 and 2009 the third resident crewmember, des-

67 David J. Shayler ignated Flight Engineer 2, could once again join the main crew, Crew “A” then departed allowing Crew “B” to start Expedition but with Space Flight Participant agreements still outstanding they “Y” were transported to and from the station via the Space Shuttle. In Crew “C” then joined Crew “B” to work together on Expedition all, nine crewmembers were delivered this way, flying as the sev- “Y” enth Shuttle crewmember (MS-5) for ascent and entry, transfer- When Crew “B” returned then Crew “C” began Expedition ring to the resident crew shortly after arriving at the ISS. As sever- “Z”…and so on al of these crewmembers worked with more than one expedition, largely overlooked at the time, they trialed the system of multiple The lead crew in any Expedition was termed Expedition “X” increment assignment that would become normal practice from Prime. Towards the end of their stay on ISS, when the Prime ‘ex- the commencement of six-person crewing. pedition crew’ handed over command of the station to the next Prime crew, they assumed the unimaginative designation of the Six-person crewing “Non-Prime Crew” for up to a few days until they undocked their Soyuz from the station, signalling the ‘formal’ end to their expe- By 2009 the station assembly was at last at a point where it could dition. These variations of duration can lead to confusion on the support a permanent six-person resident crew. With the pending exact length of each mission or duration of an individual expe- retirement of the Shuttle just two years away and its replacement dition/increment. Table 1 givens an example of how the overall still many years in the future, it was clear that for the foreseeable Mission Day durations were defined for EO-35, and are typical for future the only way a crew could be launched to the station would each increment. be on a Soyuz, again making the decision to utilise that versatile vehicle a wise one. This new system [7] commenced in 2009 with the EO-19 (Padalka/Barratt/Wakata) crew, who seamlessly remained on To attain six-person crewing, two Soyuz craft would be re- board and merged into the EO-20 expedition before being joined quired to ferry residents launched in two teams of three in part by the second trio on Soyuz TMA-15 (Romanenko/DeWinne/ to ease the strain on the limited resources on the station, and to Thirsk) who then remained with the station to take command as provide an overlap to each increment programme. This meant one EO-21, though Wakata was replaced via the Shuttle by the final team of three would be the primary expedition crew, with the sec- two resident crewmembers (Kopra, then Stott). In September two ond trio serving as Flight Engineers until the first crew left the new crewmembers arrived on TMA-16 and with the seventh SFP station. This second team then became the primary crew for the created a short-term station complement of nine. next expedition having gained on-orbit experience to continue station operations with very little interruption. They were to be After a week of joint activities, the SFP departed on TMA-14 joined later by a new crew of three, who would in turn assume the with Padalka and Barratt, followed in November by Stott on STS- primary role seamlessly, repeating the process and allowing for a 129, then in early December by the three EO-21 Prime crew. At continuing permanent presence on the station. this point there remained just two crewmembers on board; though not officially termed a ‘caretaker’ crew, that is what they were for One knock-on effect of this meant there would be a significant a short period to assume the role of EO-22 Prime, until joined reduction of available seats for any fare-paying individuals (Space towards the end of December 2009 by three new crewmembers Flight Participants) for some time to come. Though the Soyuz on Soyuz TMA-17, raising the complement to five. Four months would always be commanded by a Russian cosmonaut, the other later, with EO-22 departed, three TMA-18 crew arrive to join the two seats would be filled by a second cosmonaut from the Russian now three EO-23 Prime residents returning ISS to its six-person Space Agency or representatives from NASA, CSA, ESA or JAXA. level. This system of two three-person rotation crews continued smoothly for the next three years, when another requirement The overlapping sequences meant that when the first crew -re briefly changed the makeup of the stations residency once again. turned there would be a short period when only three crewmembers (known as the “skeleton crew”) would be aboard the station. In Indirect increment handovers. some circumstances there was a capability to support three Soyuz crews with nine crewmembers, but not for prolonged periods. For ten years, six-person crewing has generally been the nominal increment level of the station with a few variations explained be- The new crewing flow would look like this: low. Each expedition has been supported on average by four Soyuz Crew “A” would be joined by Crew “B” creating Expedition “X” craft flown annually, each with a nominal design orbital lifetime

TABLE 1 ISS-35 Prime Mission Day Durations Phase Mission Days Dates Total Flight Duration (launch to landing) 146 19 December, 2012–14 May, 2013 Soyuz TMA-07M Transfer Duration 2 19–21 December, 2012 Docked to ISS 144 21 December, 2012–14 May, 2013 Joined EO-34 Prime as Flight Engineers - 21 December, 2012 EO-34 Phase (ISS-34) 84 21 December, 2012–March 15, 2013 EO-34/EO-35 ISS Command Transfer - 15 March, 2013 EO-35 Phase (ISS-35) 58 15 March–12 May, 2013 EO-35/EO-36 ISS Command Transfer - 12 May, 2013 None Prime Crew 2 12–14 May, 2013 Undocking and Landing - 14 May 2013

68 Changing Shift on the ISS

Fig. 3 The formal ceremony of passing command of the station Fig. 4 New crewmembers are welcomed aboard the space and handing over the ‘keys’ to the station. station. of six months. Each Soyuz normally carries a three-person crew. ing fact is that, being so early in the cooperative programme, the Prior to 2009, with a permanent crew of two or three, just two Soyuz commanders for EO 1 (Gidzenko) and 3 (Dezhurov), were Soyuz flights a year were required. The pattern currently [2019] designated only as ISS-Pilots and not Flight Engineers for their used on ISS is called “indirect handovers”, which means one Soyuz period of station residency. crew will undock, leaving a crew of three on the ISS just prior to the next trio arriving in a new Soyuz. This means the crewing on Tradition & ceremony ISS usually varies across the year from six to three and then back to six, then three and so on. Over the years both the Russian and American programmes have adapted numerous traditions and ceremonies which they observe On board the station the main operations are managed in de- for each spaceflight. This remains the same for ISS crew arrivals fined periods, which NASA terms “increments” (Expeditions), in and departures. which a dedicated crew of astronauts and cosmonauts operate on Welcoming Visitors: The first of these traditions occurs when a board the station for a defined time and under a specific station new crew arrive at the station. The hatch opening ceremony, usu- commander. ally a couple of hours after docking, is televised and hugs are seen as each new crewmember arrives in the station and the visitors NASA created the idea of an ‘increment’ early in the station are welcomed together with news and gifts from home. Usually programme to refine resident crew planning across the partners, formal ceremonies are conducted in this period, and are normally as there would be crews coming and going, new hardware and sup- televised (Fig. 4). plies arriving throughout the year. At the time this planning fore- ISS Log Book: Begun by the first ISS crew, theISS Log Book is saw only the Shuttle delivering most of the hardware and crews, signed by each crewmember on their dedicated mission page. A so an increment was a precise period of time between the arrival similar log was seen during the Shuttle-Mir dockings. By 2019 the of Shuttle missions, whose time on orbit were planned by a dedi- ISS log is almost 20 years old and if it ever reached the world’s auc- cated increment manager. Following the retirement of the Shuttle tion houses one can only guess at the huge interest and inevitable the concept remained the same for planning purposes, but at the high value it would attain (Fig 5A, 5B). departure time of a Soyuz [8]. Deck the Walls: Each crew, whether arriving by Shuttle or Soyuz, have placed a mission emblem decal on the walls of the station, Handover from one increment to another is always led by the normally near the hatches, to provide a visual record of comings outgoing and incoming commanders (Fig. 3). Prior to 2009 an increment could last a full six months, essentially matching the duration lifetime of a Soyuz vehicle. Since 2009 the increments have corresponded to an overlap of Soyuz crews every 2-4 months, with each crewmember serving on at least two increments, as trialled during 2006-2009.

Since 2009, being able to fly the first half of a mission as ‘flight engineers’ on one increment has allowed crews to fully adapt to spaceflight conditions, gain experience and come up to speed on operations and procedures prior to assuming the role of Prime crew on the next increment, passing their knowledge to the next set of FEs who will, in time, assume command for the subsequent expedition.

Generally one complete crew of three hand over to the next trio, but it did not start out that way. In March 2001 the first in-orbit handover of a complete crew was accomplished between EO-1 and EO-2, but as the process was still relatively new the exchange of crewmembers was staggered over several days to ensure Fig. 5a The ISS Log Book: a crewmember completes an entry in smooth running of the station during the process. One interest- the station’s log book…

69 David J. Shayler

Fig. 5b …and a close-up of the completed Log Book pages. Fig. 6 Adding the latest mission emblem to the collection displayed on the station. and goings since 1998 (Fig 6). and readiness (Fig 7.). Change of Command: This is where the outgoing increment lead- Time to Say Goodbye: At the end of the mission another tradition er formally hand over the command of the station. This includes is the farewell, which can at times be emotional, after which the passing over the ceremonial keys to the door of the station (which remaining crew can focus upon returning to their duties, and look in recent exchanges has been identified as a hatch tool key) to the forward to the arrival of their next visitors (Fig. 8). next commander. This is usually done a few days prior to departure of the outgoing crew and does not officially mean the end on Planning an expedition the current expedition. According to NASA the undocking of the departing Soyuz is seen as the ‘official’ end of an increment. From the outside it may seem relatively smooth to hand over from When the Bell Tolls: The commander of the first ISS resident crew, one crew to the next and operate an increment/expedition but like Bill Shepherd, a former Navy Seal, started a tradition by ringing a the proverbial duck swimming serenely on the surface, underwater ‘ship’s bell’ on the arrival of a new crew and departure of former they are paddling furiously to make it all happen. In some respects ‘shipmates’. This stems from an old naval tradition where the ship’s ISS operations are similar. It takes years of planning to create each bell marked the times of duty shifts – critical in ensuring routine expedition, developing the manifest that includes the all-impor-

Fig. 7 EO-1 Commander Bill Shepherd and STS-97 Commander Brent Jett ring the Ship’s Bell on board the ISS.

70 Changing Shift on the ISS

Fig. 8 A departing crew bid farewell as they begin the journey home. tant allocation of supplies and the vehicles to deliver them, oper- (OSTP – one each for the ground and on board ISS) and a Daily ational requirements such as EVAs, re-boost manoeuvres and ro- Execute Package (DEP). These are all published pre-flight, but due botics, and the science programme the crews will engage in. About to real-time occurrences during the missions there is a constant two years prior to the expedition the detailed planning commences need for ongoing re-planning. resulting in a library of programme and increment documentation including the crew schedules. This results in the Increment Defi- Learning the lessons nition and Requirement Document (IDRD) about two years prior to a specific increment and around the same time as the crews are Crew time on board the ISS is at a premium and trying to balance assigned. The detail of ISS increment planning and crew training what is planned to be achieved against what is actually attained, is beyond the scope of this current paper [9] but briefly the IDRD, together with underestimating or overestimating the duration of in conjunction with the Generic Ground Rules, Requirements and tasks and any unplanned activities thrown in, remains a constant Constraints (GGR&C) document gradually develops, defining the challenge to the ground teams and the crew on station. Lessons rudiments for a specific expedition into a final IDRD published learned from over three decades of station activities on Salyut, approximately one month prior to the increment. Skylab and Mir, as well as the growing number of ISS expeditions, demonstrate that crew flexibility is key to an increase in produc- Parallel to this the International Execute Planning Team (IEPT), tivity. Early on, hard scheduling each day was seen as not the way led by NASA JSC with representatives of partner agencies, develop forward. Instead creating a “job jar” or “task list” offers the crew all pre-increment products. An Increment Overview begins with flexibility to address issues which need to be completed but do not a draft about 12 months (called the ‘I-12’) prior to the increment have to be specific to a given day or week. Current daily plans are beginning; this is followed at Increment-8 months (known as ‘I-8’) far more flexible, giving the crews more autonomy, and providing by the Increment Specific Ground Rules & Constraints. At the same a valuable database for the eventual planning of long-term explo- time the I-8 draft for the On Orbit Summary (OSS) commences. ration beyond Earth orbit. Preliminary documents are produced between 4-6 months prior to the increment. These are followed by final documents one month Administrative Flight Engineers prior to the increment beginning and what is hoped to be smooth sailing for the crew and teams of flight controllers. During the Salyut expeditions, with little exchange of crews, their defined time on board the station was easily identified by extract- The OSS is a high level plan (based on GMT) across the coming the intervening time spent on the station from the launch to plete increment addressing time usage and major operations ex- docking and undocking to landing times. With Mir this became a pected during the residency. Long Range Planning (LRP) teams little more complicated when crewmembers were exchanged, but develop series of Monthly Calendars, Weekly Look Ahead Plans became more involved with ISS as the station grew and crews en- (WLP), Short Term Plans (STP), On-board Short term Plans larged from initially three, to two, then back to three and finally

71 David J. Shayler to upwards of six permanent crewmembers arriving and departing TABLE 2 ISS Resident administrative crewing Nov 2000-March 2019 on different vehicles. ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Nov 2000 – Apr 2005 (EO-1 through EO-10) During the solo flight of a Soyuz the crew use the personal ra- ISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 dio call sign of their commander (e.g. “Altair”, or “Karat”) with the CDR Shepherd Usachev Culbertson Onufriyenko Korzun Bowersox Malenchenko Foale Padalka Chiao other crewmembers adapting this call sign adding ‘-2’ or ‘-3’. These FE-1 Krikalev Voss Tyurin Bursch Whitson Budarin Lu Kaleri Fincke Sharipov call signs remain with the Soyuz commander for the duration of their active career and were used during Salyut and Mir expedi- FE-2 Gidzenko Helms Dzhurov Walz Treschev Pettit tions. For ISS however, unlike the earlier programmes, individual call signs are still used on Soyuz solo flight portions (launch to sta- ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Apr 2005 – Oct 2009 (EO-11 through EO-20) tion/station to landing) but are no longer used even on the Russian ISS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 segment during an expedition. On board the station, crewmembers are normally identified by their given names and not by call CDR Krikalev McArthur Vinogradov Lopez-Alegria Yurchikhin Whitson Volkov S. Fincke Padalka Padalka signs or their administrative designations [10]. FE-1 Phillips Tokarev Williams J. Tyurin Kotov Malenchenko Kononenko Lonchakov Barratt Barratt Reiter Williams S. Anderson C. Reisman Chamitoff Wakata On ISS the Expedition/Increment Commander is in charge of Tani Magnus Kopra the residency, the safety of the crew and attainment of mission FE-2 Wakata Williams S. Anderson C. Eyharts Chamitoff objectives. The Commander can be assisted by up to five ‘Flight Wakata Stott Engineers’ designated accordingly FE-1 through -5, but these des- Reisman ignations are not defined with specific tasks such as those followed FE-3 Romanenko R. by the American Apollo Command Module Pilot or Lunar Mod- FE-4 Thirsk ule Pilot, or connected to skills in a particular role or with items equipment. The nature of the long-duration missions do not allow FE-5 DeWinne for such micro-detailing. Therefore these positions are classed as * From EO-20 onwards the Flight Engineer/pending Station Commander is in itallics ‘administrative’, being used for flight planning rather than defined roles on board the station. The FE designation only covers the ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Oct 2009–Apr 2011 (EO-21 through EO-30) planning of work, rest and exercise periods during each expedi- ISS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 tion. For the allocation of clothing, food and personal items, the CDR DeWinne Williams J. Kotov Skvortsov Wheelock Kelly S. Kondratyev Borisenko Fossum Burbank crewmember’s name is used [10]. FE-1 Surayev Surayev Skvortsov – Kaleri Kaleri Samokutyaev Samokutyaev Shkaplerov Shkaplerov Breaking the mould FE-2 Stott – Caldwell-Dyson Caldwell-Dyson Skripochka Skripochka Borisenko – Ivanishin Ivanishin FE-3 Romanenko R. – Kornienko Kornienko Kelly S. – Garan Garan Burbank – A study of these “administrative” designations (see Table 2) reveals exactly how the system has operated since 2000 and across 60 ex- FE-4 Thirsk Kotov – Wheelock – Kondratyev – Volkov S. Volkov S. Kononenko peditions. There have of course been times when nominal opera- FE-5 Williams J. Noguchi Noguchi Yurchikhin Yurchikhin Nespoli Nespoli Furukawa Furukawa Kuipers tions have had to be changed and these are listed below. There are FE-6 – Creamer Creamer Walker S. Walker S. Coleman Coleman Fossum – Pettit also key observations to be made in reviewing the Table. • Fir stly, FEs normally cover two expeditions and retain the ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Apr 2011–Sep 2014 (EO-31 through EO-40) administrative designation for both expedition phases. • W hen a pending Commander arrives on the ISS they join ISS 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 the prime increment as a Flight Engineer in the first phase of CDR Kononenko Padalka Williams S. Ford Hadfield Vinogradov Yurchikhin Kotov Wakata Swanson their flight, then assume the CDR role for the second phase. FE-1 Padalka – Novitskiy Novitskiy Vinogradov – Kotov – Skvortsov Skvortsov In doing so, their former FE slot is left vacant until the next FE-2 Revin Revin Terelkin Terelkin Misurkin Misurkin Ryazansky Ryazansky Artemyev Artemyev expedition arrives • Th ough these designations are officially “administrative” FE-3 Acaba Acaba Ford - Cassidy Cassidy Hopkins Hopkins Swanson – and not assigned specific roles, since EO-21 (2009) the role FE-4 – Malenchenko Malenchenko Romanenko R. Romanenko R. Yurchikhin – Tyurin Tyurin Surayev of FE-1 has always been assigned to a Russian cosmonaut. FE-5 Kuipers Williams S. – Hadfield – Parmitano Parmitano Mastracchio Mastracchio Wiseman • Between EO-25 and EO-50 the designation of FE-2 was also FE-6 Pettit Hoshide Hoshide Marshburn Marshburn Nyberg Nyberg Wakata – Gerst assigned to a Russian cosmonaut, indicating that, together with FE-1, those two administrative designations were FE-7 Tyurin reserved for cosmonauts operating mainly in the Russian FE-8 Mastracchio segment. FE-9 Wakata • S ince EO-51 and the reduction in Russian crewing, the FE-2 role is no longer reserved for Russian cosmonauts, though ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Sep-2014–Apr 2017 (EO-41 through EO-50) this may change in the future. ISS 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

2013 Olympics short-term expansion CDR Suraev Wilmore Virts Padalka Kelly S. Kelly S. Kopra Williams J. Ivanishin Kimbrough FE-1 Samokutyaev Samokutyaev Padalka – Volkov S. Volkov S. Ovchinin Ovchinin Ryzhikov Ryzhikov In 2013, as part of the preparation for the 22nd Winter Olympi- FE-2 Serova Serova Kornienko Kornienko Kornienko Kornienko Skripochka Skripochka Borisenko Borisenko ad held in Sochi, Russia, a decision was taken to fly an Olympic Torch to the station, display it during a Russian EVA on Novem- FE-3 Wilmore – Kelly S. Kelly S. – – Williams J. – Kimbrough – ber 9, then return it to Earth after just a few days in space. This FE-4 – Shkaplerov Shkaplerov Kononenko Kononenko Malenchenko Malenchenko Ivanishin – Novitsky time-critical event meant the Soyuz TMA-11M crew (EO 38/39) FE-5 Wiseman Cristoforetti Cristoforetti Yui Yui Kopra – Onishi Onishi Pesquet had to be launched earlier than originally planned to ensure the FE-6 Gerst Virts – Lindgren Lindgren Peake Peake Rubins Rubins Whitson torch was back on Earth to continue its Olympic journey. With the combined TMA-9 and 10 crews already on board ISS conducting FE-7 Padalka

72 Changing Shift on the ISS

TABLE 2 ISS Resident administrative crewing Nov 2000-March 2019

ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Nov 2000 – Apr 2005 (EO-1 through EO-10) ISS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 CDR Shepherd Usachev Culbertson Onufriyenko Korzun Bowersox Malenchenko Foale Padalka Chiao FE-1 Krikalev Voss Tyurin Bursch Whitson Budarin Lu Kaleri Fincke Sharipov FE-2 Gidzenko Helms Dzhurov Walz Treschev Pettit

ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Apr 2005 – Oct 2009 (EO-11 through EO-20) ISS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CDR Krikalev McArthur Vinogradov Lopez-Alegria Yurchikhin Whitson Volkov S. Fincke Padalka Padalka FE-1 Phillips Tokarev Williams J. Tyurin Kotov Malenchenko Kononenko Lonchakov Barratt Barratt Reiter Williams S. Anderson C. Reisman Chamitoff Wakata Tani Magnus Kopra FE-2 Wakata Williams S. Anderson C. Eyharts Chamitoff Wakata Stott Reisman FE-3 Romanenko R. FE-4 Thirsk FE-5 DeWinne * From EO-20 onwards the Flight Engineer/pending Station Commander is in itallics

ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Oct 2009–Apr 2011 (EO-21 through EO-30) ISS 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 CDR DeWinne Williams J. Kotov Skvortsov Wheelock Kelly S. Kondratyev Borisenko Fossum Burbank FE-1 Surayev Surayev Skvortsov – Kaleri Kaleri Samokutyaev Samokutyaev Shkaplerov Shkaplerov FE-2 Stott – Caldwell-Dyson Caldwell-Dyson Skripochka Skripochka Borisenko – Ivanishin Ivanishin FE-3 Romanenko R. – Kornienko Kornienko Kelly S. – Garan Garan Burbank –

FE-4 Thirsk Kotov – Wheelock – Kondratyev – Volkov S. Volkov S. Kononenko FE-5 Williams J. Noguchi Noguchi Yurchikhin Yurchikhin Nespoli Nespoli Furukawa Furukawa Kuipers FE-6 – Creamer Creamer Walker S. Walker S. Coleman Coleman Fossum – Pettit

ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Apr 2011–Sep 2014 (EO-31 through EO-40) ISS 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 CDR Kononenko Padalka Williams S. Ford Hadfield Vinogradov Yurchikhin Kotov Wakata Swanson FE-1 Padalka – Novitskiy Novitskiy Vinogradov – Kotov – Skvortsov Skvortsov FE-2 Revin Revin Terelkin Terelkin Misurkin Misurkin Ryazansky Ryazansky Artemyev Artemyev FE-3 Acaba Acaba Ford - Cassidy Cassidy Hopkins Hopkins Swanson – FE-4 – Malenchenko Malenchenko Romanenko R. Romanenko R. Yurchikhin – Tyurin Tyurin Surayev FE-5 Kuipers Williams S. – Hadfield – Parmitano Parmitano Mastracchio Mastracchio Wiseman FE-6 Pettit Hoshide Hoshide Marshburn Marshburn Nyberg Nyberg Wakata – Gerst FE-7 Tyurin FE-8 Mastracchio FE-9 Wakata

ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Sep-2014–Apr 2017 (EO-41 through EO-50) ISS 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 CDR Suraev Wilmore Virts Padalka Kelly S. Kelly S. Kopra Williams J. Ivanishin Kimbrough FE-1 Samokutyaev Samokutyaev Padalka – Volkov S. Volkov S. Ovchinin Ovchinin Ryzhikov Ryzhikov FE-2 Serova Serova Kornienko Kornienko Kornienko Kornienko Skripochka Skripochka Borisenko Borisenko FE-3 Wilmore – Kelly S. Kelly S. – – Williams J. – Kimbrough – FE-4 – Shkaplerov Shkaplerov Kononenko Kononenko Malenchenko Malenchenko Ivanishin – Novitsky FE-5 Wiseman Cristoforetti Cristoforetti Yui Yui Kopra – Onishi Onishi Pesquet FE-6 Gerst Virts – Lindgren Lindgren Peake Peake Rubins Rubins Whitson FE-7 Padalka

73 David J. Shayler the six-person EO-37 phase, the administrative designations of TABLE 2 (contd.) FE-7, 8 and 9 were created especially for the incoming TMA-11 ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Apr 2017–Mar 2019 (EO-51 through EO-60) crew. They were to accompany the Olympic torch to orbit on No- ISS 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 vember 7 before it was returned after five days in space by the crew of TMA-9 on November 11. Following the departure of the CDR Whitson Yurchkhin Bresnik Misurkin Shkaplerov Feustel Gerst Kononenko Kononenko Ovchinin TMA-9 trio, the TMA 11 crew assumed the now vacant adminis- FE-1 Yurchkhin - Misurkin - Artemyev Artemyev Kononenko – – Skvortsov ? trative designations, for planning purposes, of FE-4 (Tyurin and FE-2 Fischer Fischer Vande Hei Vande Hei Feustel – Saint-Jacques Saint-Jacques Saint-Jacques Parmitano? previously vacant), -5 (Mastracchio formerly held by Parmitano) FE-3 – Whitson Acaba Acaba Arnold Arnold McClain McClain McClain Morgan A? and -6 (Wakata formerly held by Nyberg) joining the remaining three EO-39 crewmembers, returning once again to a nominal FE-4 Novitsky Ryazanzky Ryazanzky Shkaplerov – Prokopev Prokopev Ovchinin – six-person capability. FE-5 Pesquet Bresnik – Tingle Tingle Gerst – Hague Hague FE-6 – Nespoli Nespoli Kanai Kanai Aunon-Chancellor Aunon-Chancellor Koch Koch A One-Year Crew

Sixteen months later, in March 2015 Scott Kelly and Mikhail Korn- ienko began their planned one-year residency on the ISS, arriving ed due to failure of the Soyuz FG launch vehicle, with the crew aboard TMA-16M with Gennady Padalka to join EO-43 as FEs. landing safely 20 minutes after launch. CDR Alexei Ovchinin and Padalka took command of EO-44 but would return after that ex- FE Nick Hague were scheduled to join the EO-57 crew. According pedition, allowing Scott Kelly to take over station command for to the original plan, Ovchinin was to assume the administrative EO-45 and -46 and completing almost a twelve months in space role of FE1 for EO-57 prior to assuming the command of EO-58 with Kornienko. This created an opportunity to fly a new visit- from that December, while Hague was to serve as FE-2 for both ing mission with one cosmonaut, Sergei Volkov joining Kelly and EO-57 and EO-58. Kornienko for the rest of their residency. The two visiting cosmonauts, (VC-18) that arrived aboard Soyuz TMA-18M returned This failure to reach to ISS presented a serious problem to ISS with Padalka after ten days on the station, but for a short time as planning teams as the current EO-57 resident crew’s recommend- outgoing Commander for EO-45 the veteran cosmonaut revived ed 200-day service life of their Soyuz MS-9 was approaching ex- the FE-7 administrative position. piration, requiring recovery by December. In theory MS-9 could have remained on orbit until early January, but with a question Reduced Russian crewing mark over the integrity of the vehicle’s Orbital Module, and little desire to attempt to extend the mission or to de-crew the station, In August 2016 [11] reports circulated that Russia, in a bid to cut mothball its systems and control it from the ground, a rapid inves- costs, was considering reducing its crew complement on the ISS tigation into the MS-10 incident was required and a revised plan from three to two, and in future fly just one cosmonaut, as com- needed to be put quickly into action. mander for each Soyuz launched, offering the vacant seats to partner agencies or for sale. Further delays in the long awaited (Nau- The resulting commission report, dated October 31, concluded ka) Multi-Purpose Research Module was a factor in the decision, that while a sensor and separation motor on the launch vehicle though it was anticipated that after the attachment of Nauka to the had worked properly, a ball joint supporting one of its strap-on Russian segment crewing would return to three. boosters was deformed during assembly, preventing proper separation of the side booster during the launch and resulting in the For the launch of Soyuz MS-04 in April 2017 this resulted in signal to abort the ascent. only two cosmonauts on board, as Nikolai Tikhonov had been re- moved due to the delays with Nauka. This was the first time since On October 23, NASA had already announced that Soyuz 2003 that only two crewmembers were on board a Soyuz at launch. flights would resume in December with the launch of MS-11 join- To capitalise on this a decision was made to extend the flight of ing the EO-57 crew to return to a six-person complement. It was one of the American astronauts already on orbit. In June 2017 Peg- then announced that following the return of the MS-09 trio in De- gy Whitson (EO-51) handed command of the station to Fyodor cember, the EO-58 increment would be a revised short three-per- Yurchikhin (EO-52). But when her colleagues Oleg Novitsky and son increment ending when MS-12 arrived to commence EO-59. Thomas Pesquet departed on MS-03, signifying the formal end of Aboard MS-12 would be the reassigned Ovchinin and Hague , to the EO-51 expedition, Whitson remained on board with the new be joined by rookie Christina Hammock Koch. administrative designation of FE-3 for an extended stay as an EO- 52 crewmember. As planned the MS-11 trio arrived at the ISS on December 3 and assumed the role as EO-58 prime crew on December 20 with Change of plan for Tikhonov… again the departure of the MS-09/EO-57 crew. Three months later the MS-12 crew arrived, and upon docking and transfer on March 14 After being reassigned from MS-04, Nikolai Tikhonov was to have 2019 the EO-59 expedition began once again returning the station been a member of the MS-10 crew along with Aleksey Ovchinin to its nominal 6-person complement. and Nick Hague. But further delays in launching the Nauka module, his speciality, resulted in his removal from the MS-10 crew, The immediate future creating a vacant (unassigned/not sold) seat for what turned out to be the aborted launch in October 2018. For the third time Tik- At the time of writing the 60th ISS increment will begin in June of honov was re-assigned to a new mission, MS-15 (EO-61) planned 2019 led by the crew of MS-12 who will be joined in July by the for later in 2019. crew of MS-13 who will assume the Prime EO-61 position from October of that year. The flight of MS-13 is interesting in that for The consequence of an abort a while it was reported that this was to be the final Soyuz flight to have crew seats contracted by NASA due to the pending flights of On October 11, 2018, the launch of Soyuz MS-10 had to be abort- U.S. crewed commercial flights to the ISS, however…

74 Changing Shift on the ISS

TABLE 2 (contd.) ISS Resident Administrative Crewing Apr 2017–Mar 2019 (EO-51 through EO-60) ISS 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 CDR Whitson Yurchkhin Bresnik Misurkin Shkaplerov Feustel Gerst Kononenko Kononenko Ovchinin FE-1 Yurchkhin - Misurkin - Artemyev Artemyev Kononenko – – Skvortsov ? FE-2 Fischer Fischer Vande Hei Vande Hei Feustel – Saint-Jacques Saint-Jacques Saint-Jacques Parmitano? FE-3 – Whitson Acaba Acaba Arnold Arnold McClain McClain McClain Morgan A? FE-4 Novitsky Ryazanzky Ryazanzky Shkaplerov – Prokopev Prokopev Ovchinin – FE-5 Pesquet Bresnik – Tingle Tingle Gerst – Hague Hague FE-6 – Nespoli Nespoli Kanai Kanai Aunon-Chancellor Aunon-Chancellor Koch Koch

Having a backup plan SUMMARY The inclusion, in the early 1990s, of the Russian Soyuz into In February 2019 it was revealed that NASA was considering the the International Space Station programme was a significant purchase two additional seats on Soyuz in the fall of 2019 and decision. Soyuz has provided a readily available rescue and the spring of 2020 as a backup plan in case the Dragon 2 and Star crew ferry for nearly 20 years with relatively few failures or Liner test flights encountered delays in qualification [12]. Such a setbacks. Since the retirement of the Shuttle in 2011, Soyuz move ensured uninterrupted access to the ISS even if the com- has been the only method of ferrying crews to and from the mercial flights were completed as planned, as well as guaranteeing station until the inauguration of crewing via U.S. commercial continuity of research on the US segment and a safety net for the vehicles. By using Soyuz, with its numerous variants, from crew on board. the start of resident crewing, a workable system of exchanging ferry craft, delivering visiting or resident crews, swapping NASA’s purchase of seats on Soyuz goes back to 2006 when complete or single members of an expedition on orbit and an original agreement signed in 1996 expired. That agreement providing a readily available rescue vehicle at all times was at obliged the Russians to provide eleven Soyuz craft as potential hand and provided a backup plan for when the Shuttle was rescue vehicles, and when this ran out NASA had to pay for flying grounded or retired. It is remarkable that Soyuz has remained its astronauts on Soyuz. As it takes about two years to fabricate at the forefront of space station operations for five decades a Soyuz, regular agreements had to be in place to incorporate and is expected to be in service for a few more years to come this into the long-term planning documents. NASA has regularly until new generations of spacecraft replace what is essentially bought Soyuz seats during the post-Shuttle era, but when the 2015 the venerable workhorse of the space programme. contract was signed, covering seats through 2018, the agency still expected commercial services to commence by 2017. When that Acknowledgments slipped, a similar agreement to purchase an additional five seats In the compilation of this paper the author greatly appreciates was completed in January 17, 2017 [13]. Two of these seats were the assistance of Daniel G. Huot, PAO, NASA JSC, Houston utilized in 2017 and 2018, with three reserved for 2019. This new Texas and Koichi Wakata, JAXA astronaut & current JAXA 2019 agreement provides a crew transport capability into 2020, Vice President and Director General for human spaceflight whereupon it is expected that NASA will no longer require seat technology. All images courtesy of NASA. Thanks also to Bart space on Soyuz, possibly opening up the positions to other part- Hendrickx for his scholarly knowledge and understanding of ners or the resumption of ‘tourist’ flights. the Russian space programme.

References

1. Space Ships & Space Travel, Frank Ross Jr. Museum Press, 1956. p.71. and Analysis, in Outpost in Orbit: A Pictorial & Verbal history of 2. An in-depth look at the inclusion of Soyuz into the ISS programme the International Space Station. David J. Shayler & Robert Godwin, can be found in the two volumes of the Society’s ISS Imagination Executive Editor Dr. Gary Kitmacher, Apogee Books, 2018, p. 282. to Reality: From Mir 2 to the ISS Russian Segment (Volume 1 pp. 9. The International Space Station: Operating an Outpost in the New 3-44), and The ISS Russian Segment: Recent Developments and Future Frontier, Executive Editor Robert Dempsey, NASA SP-2017-634, Prospects (Volume 2 pp. 3-26), both authored by Bart Hendrickx. Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 2017 specifically Chapter 1: ISS 3. U.S., Russia Name International Space Station Crews, NASA News Panning; 2: Living & Working in Space and on the Ground; and, 4: Release H97-269, 17 November, 1997. The Making of a Mission. 4. Soyuz: A Universal Space Craft, Rex D. Hall & David J. Shayler, 10. Personal email from Koichi Wakata, 14 March, 2019. Springer Praxis, 2003, p 285, 319 & 391. 11. “Roscosmos will reduce the crew on the ISS”, Ivan Chebeko, Izvestia 5. “Expedition 7 Crew Set to Launch”, NASA News Release H03-127, 1 [online] news August 11, 2016. April, 2003. 12. Procurement of Crew Transportation and Rescue Service from 6. Personal email from Daniel Huot, 27 March, 2019. Roscosmos, February 13, 2019, NASA JSC BG 9 Solicitation number 80JSC019 Roscosmos 7. “NASA Assigns Space Station Crews, Updates Expedition Numbering”, NASA News Release H08-306, 21 November, 2008. 13. “NASA Considering Boeing offer for additional Soyuz Seats”, Jeff Foust, Space News [online] 17 January, 2017. 8. “Life in Orbit”, interview with Anne Accola, NASA Mission Planning

75 76 FORTHCOMING LECTURES & MEETINGS OF THE BIS

NASA’S ARCHIVES: THE FIRST 60 YEARS 24 April 2019, 7.00pm VENUE: BIS, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London SW8 1SZ Piers Bizony lifts the lid on some of the treasures to be found in the archives of the world’s oldest and most prolific space agency. . APOLLO 10 – DRESS REHEARSAL FOR THE MOON LANDING 22 May 2019, 7.00pm VENUE: BIS, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London SW8 1SZ Jerry Stone continues his coverage of Apollo with the first flight to carry both the Apollo spacecraft and the Lunar Module on a full dress rehearsal of a landing. Call for Papers RUSSIAN-SINO FORUM 1-2 June 2019, 9.30 am to 5pm (tbc) VENUE: BIS, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London, SW8 1SZ The BIS has now scheduled its 39th annual Russian-Sino Forum – one of our most popular and longest running events. Papers are invited. APOLLO MISSIONS: LANDING ON THE MOON BY DAVID BAKER 12 June 2019, 7.00pm VENUE: BIS, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London, SW8 1SZ SpaceFlight’s editor looks at the systems evolved by NASA for calculating optimum lunar landing trajectories, and at the descent procedures needed to achieve the maximum chance of success. 74TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 27 July 2018, 1 pm VENUE: Harwell Campus, Oxfordshire (tbc) Admission to the AGM is open to Fellows only but all Members are welcome to join the discussion after the formalities conclude around 1.15 pm. Please advise in advance if you wish to attend (attendance to this part of the afternoon is free). The AGM will be followed by the BIS Summer Get-together at the same venue; tickets are £20 and will be on sale on our website soon. Council nomination forms are obtainable from the Executive Secretary or from the BIS website. These must be completed and returned not later than 1pm 4 May 2019. If the number of nominations exceeds the number of vacancies, election will be by postal ballot. Voting papers will then be prepared and circulated to all Corporate Members.

SPACE CHRONICLE A BRITISH INTERPLANETARY SOCIETY PUBLICATION

Vol. 72 No.2 2019

OPERATIONS WITH TIANGONG-2 Phillip S. Clark

SOVIET WEATHER WATCH The Early Years of the Meteor Programme Bart Hendrickx

CHINA’S PATHFINDER ASTRONAUTS Bert Vis

CHANGING SHIFT ON THE ISS David J. Shayler