DOCSLIB.ORG

Walking in Space

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

David J. Shayler Walking in Space Published in association with Springer Praxis Publishing Chichester, UK Table of contents Foreword xiii Author's preface xvii Acknowledgements xxi List of illustrations xxiii Prologue xxix THEORY PUT TO THE TEST Dreams and desires 1 Dreams of discovery 2 Science enters science fiction 3 The theorists take over 4 Tsiolkovsky's 'games on a tether' 4 Outside in empty space 6 The 1950s: men from Mars and the influence of science fiction 8 Destination Moon and Collier's 8 The work of the British Interplanetary Society 9 The work of H.E. Ross and R.A. Smith 9 Suited for space 14 First spacesuits 14 Science fiction in the Space Age 14 References 15 PIONEERING THE TECHNIQUES Stepping stones 18 Cosmonauts on Mars 18 After Vostok 19 NASA's advanced manned space programme 19 Mercury Mark II becomes Gemini 19 Soviet Vykhod (Exit) plans 20 viii Table of contents Early hardware 22 Methods of exit: air-lock or hatch 23 The Volga air-lock 24 The Gemini EVA hatch 24 The first EVA suits 25 Berkut 25 G4C 26 First steps into the void 27 Vykhod: the first exit 27 Hurdles to overcome? 29 Zip guns 32 Gemini EVA planning 32 Go for EVA 33 A learning curve 33 Results of Gemini EVAs 35 Conclusions from the pioneers 37 References 38 TOOLS OF THE TRADE Expanding the capabilities 42 Methods of exit 42 Hatches 43 Air-locks 44 Spacesuits and life support 44 Spacesuits 44 Umbilicals 53 Back-packs 53 Manoeuvring devices 54 Gemini 54 Soviet AMU (Voskhod/Almaz) 60 Manoeuvring Unit M509 (Skylab) 62 Foot Controlled Manoeuvring Unit (Skylab) 64 MMU (STS-41B, 41C and 51A) 66 Soviet MMU (Mir and Soyuz TM-8) 72 SAFER (Space Shuttle and ISS) 74 Restraints and support 76 Gemini 76 Space Shuttle restraints and harnesses 76 Manipulators and booms 77 Tool-kits 82 Tool carriers 82 Surface tools 83 Sample return containers 88 Photographic equipment 92 In-flight service tools 92 Table of contents ix Space station EVA tool-kits 95 Transportation 97 Apollo surface mobility aids 97 References 103 PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT Where there's a need 106 Voskhod and Soyuz: a new skill 106 Gemini: a learning curve 106 To go to the Moon 107 Skylab: training for a rescue 107 Salyut and Mir: routine operations 107 The Space Shuttle: stretching the envelope 108 The International Space Station: a new challenge 108 Training for the future 108 Types of training 109 Planning 109 EVA integration 112 1-g simulations 113 Bench reviews 113 1-g walk-through 113 Altitude chamber tests 117 Air-bearing platforms 118 Body harnesses 119 Geological training 121 Zero-g aircraft training 124 NASA's KC-135 aircraft 125 Russia's Flying Laboratory 128 Europe's A-300 Airbus programme 129 Underwater training facilities 130 Early studies 131 Simulations at Langley 131 The Neutral Buoyancy Simulator, MSFC 132 The Water Emersion Training Facility, Houston 133 Sonny Carter Water Emersion Training Facility, Houston 136 The Hydro Laboratory, Moscow 138 The Japanese water tank 140 Special training facilities 141 RMS EVA training 141 MMU simulators 143 SAFER facilities 145 On-orbit traning 145 Virtual EVA 145 Conclusion 146 References 147 x Table of contents SURFACE EXPLORATION '... of landing a man on the Moon' 150 Early studies 151 Introducing EVA to Apollo 153 Factors affecting Apollo EVAs 154 Competition: the Soviet manned lunar programme 160 Soyuz EVA transfer, January 1969 160 A successful L3 demonstration? 162 Lunar cosmonauts , 164 Magnificent desolation 164 Red Rover's Golden Slippers 165 The Moon landings, July 1969-December 1972 167 The lost Apollos 168 Learning from the Moon: the Apollo experience, 1969-72 168 Deep-space EVA 189 Back to the Moon? 192 References 193 STATION SUPPORT Spacewalks from a space station 195 Working outside the vehicle 196 EVA from the Manned Orbiting Laboratory? 197 MOL experiment P6: EVA 197 MOL experiment P7 198 MOL EVA training 199 Applications from Apollo 199 EVA planning for the Orbital Workshop 201 Early Apollo Applications Program EVA planning 202 Apollo Telescope Mount EVA concept studies 203 Development of the EVA system 205 Evaluation of transfer modes 206 Development of the final Skylab ATM EVA system 208 EVA from Skylab, 1973-74 209 Skylab's planned EVA programme 210 Rescuing Skylab: the first EVAs 211 Skylab EVA tasks 213 The Apollo Telescope Mount 213 Experiments 215 The twin pole assembly. 216 Visual observations 216 Photography of comet Kohoutek 217 Skylab's last EVA: close-out activities 217 Summary 218 Salyut takes over, 1977-86 221 The early Salyuts 222 Table of contents xi Evolution of Soviet space station EVA hardware 224 EVA from Salyut 226 Planning the first Orlan/DOS EVA 227 Salyut EVA operations, 1977-86 228 The first Salyut EVA 228 Salyut EVA operations 229 Experiments 229 Evaluation, inspection and observations 231 Contingencies 234 Construction 236 A major repair 238 Summary 239 Early space station EVAs: conclusion 240 References 241 SERVICE CALLS The Space Shuttle era, 1981-2012 244 Shuttle EVA opportunities 245 Orbiter provisions for EVA 246 Shuttle EVA capabilities 248 Typical Shuttle EVA timeline 249 Orbital flight-test EVA plans 250 Early contingency EVAs 251 EVA crew roles and responsibilities 252 Developing the skill 253 STS-5: a frustrating start 254 Success with STS-6 254 Shuttle EVA satellite servicing operations, 1984-97 255 Multimission Modular Spacecraft 256 Paving the way 258 A job well done 259 An orbital service station? 263 Rescue and repair 264 Summary 275 The Hubble Space Telescope servicing capability 278 EVA planning 278 The HST Shuttle missions 282 HST EVA experiences and observations 286 Summary 288 Shuttle EVAs: an appraisal 288 References ' 289 SPACE COMPLEXES The Mir programme, 1986-2001 292 EVA from Mir, 1987-2000 292 xii Table of contents Exiting Mir 292 The Mir experience 295 Summary 305 EVA at the ISS: construction on a grand scale 309 Early studies and simulations 310 EVA and Space Station Freedom 316 Developing the technique 320 ISS EVA operations, 1998-2002 324 Quest or Pirs? 324 The wall of EVA 325 Summary 330 NEXT STEPS The future of EVA 333 The ISS: outpost in orbit 334 The Shuttle: return to flight 334 KERMIt: repairing the ISS 336 Space rescue by EVA? 337 The HST: rescue or re-entry? 339 Robots and EVA 339 A Chinese EVA? 341 Back to the Moon? 341 And so to Mars 341 And after that ...? 342 The lessons learned from EVA 344 References 345 Appendix 1 The spacewalkers 347 Appendix 2 World EVA log, 1965-2003 351 Bibliography 371 Index 375.
Recommended publications
  • Annual Report of S.P

    Annual Report of S.P

    ANNUAL REPORT OF S.P. KOROLEV ROCKET AND SPACE PUBLIC CORPORATION ENERGIA FOR 2019 This Annual Report of S.P.Korolev Rocket and Space Public Corporation Energia (RSC Energia) was prepared based upon its performance in 2019 with due regard for the requirements stated in the Russian Federation Government Decree of December 31, 2010 No. 1214 “On Improvement of the Procedure to Control Open Joint-Stock Companies whose Stock is in Federal Ownership and Federal State Unitary Enterprises”, and in accordance with the Regulations “On Information Disclosure by the Issuers of Outstanding Securities” No. 454-P approved by the Bank of Russia on December 30, 2014 Accuracy of the data contained in this Annual Report, including the Report on the interested-party transactions effected by RSC Energia in 2019, was confirmed by RSC Energia’s Auditing Committee Report as of 01.06.2020. This Annual Report was preliminary approved by RSC Energia’s Board of Directors on August 24, 2020 (Minutes No. 31). This Annual Report was approved at RSC Energia’s General Shareholders’ Meeting on September 28, 2020 (Minutes No 40 of 01.10.2020). 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT RSC ENERGIA ............................. 6 1.1. Company background .........................................................................................................................6 1.2. Period of the Company operation in the industry ...............................................................................6 1.3. Information about the purchase and sale contracts for participating interests, equities, shares of business partnerships and companies concluded by the Company in 2019 ..............................................7 1.4. Information about the holding structure and the organizations involved ...........................................8 2. PRIORITY DIRECTIONS OF RSC ENERGIA OPERATION ........................ 11 2.1.
  • Paper Session III-B - Space Station On-Orbit Assembly and Operation

    Paper Session III-B - Space Station On-Orbit Assembly and Operation

    1991 (28th) Space Achievement: A Global The Space Congress® Proceedings Destiny Apr 25th, 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM Paper Session III-B - Space Station On-Orbit Assembly and Operation L. P. Morata Vice President, Deputy General Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company, Huntington Beach CA F. David Riel Deputy Director, System Engineering and Integration, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company- Space Station Division Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings Scholarly Commons Citation Morata, L. P. and Riel, F. David, "Paper Session III-B - Space Station On-Orbit Assembly and Operation" (1991). The Space Congress® Proceedings. 9. https://commons.erau.edu/space-congress-proceedings/proceedings-1991-28th/april-25-1991/9 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Space Congress® Proceedings by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPACE STATION FREEDOM ASSEMBLY AND OPERATIONS Larry P. Morata Vice President, Deputy Project Manager—DDT&E McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company-Space Station Division Huntington Beach, California and F. David Kiel Deputy Director, System. Engineering and Integration McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company-Space Station Division Huntington Beach, California ABSTRACT Eight Man. Crew Capability (EMCC) by 31 December 2000 as shown, in Figure 1. The United States and its international partners are well Recent design, on the way to developing Space Station Freedom which will changes as part: of the SSF program restructure activity have be a very large orbiting facility with many capabilities for altered the Space Station configu­ ration and design from conducting space operations.
  • Engineering Lesson Plan: Russian Rocket Ships!

    Engineering Lesson Plan: Russian Rocket Ships!

    Engineering Lesson Plan: Russian Rocket Ships! Sputnik, Vostok, Voskhod, and Soyuz Launcher Schematics Uttering the text “rocket ship” can excite, mystify, and inspire young children. A rocket ship can transport people and cargo to places far away with awe-inspiring speed and accuracy. The text “rocket scientist” indexes a highly intelligent and admirable person, someone who is able to create, or assist in the creation of machines, vehicles that can actually leave the world we all call “home.” Rocket scientists possess the knowledge to take human beings and fantastic machines to space. This knowledge is built upon basic scientific principles of motion and form—the understanding, for young learners, of shapes and their function. This lesson uses the shape of a rocket to ignite engineering knowledge and hopefully, inspiration in young pupils and introduces them to a space program on the other side of the world. Did you know that the first person in space, Yuri Gagarin, was from the former Soviet Union? That the Soviet Union (now Russia) sent the first spacecraft, Sputnik I, into Earth’s orbit? That today, American NASA-based astronauts fly to Russia to launch and must learn conversational Russian as part of their training? Now, in 2020, there are Russians and Americans working together in the International Space Station (ISS), the latest brought there by an American-based commercial craft. Being familiar with the contributions Russia (and the former Soviet Union) has made to space travel is an integral part of understanding the ongoing human endeavor to explore the space all around us. After all, Russian cosmonauts use rocket ships too! The following lesson plan is intended for kindergarten students in Indiana to fulfill state engineering learning requirements.
  • The Soviet Space Program

    The Soviet Space Program

    C05500088 TOP eEGRET iuf 3EEA~ NIE 11-1-71 THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM Declassified Under Authority of the lnteragency Security Classification Appeals Panel, E.O. 13526, sec. 5.3(b)(3) ISCAP Appeal No. 2011 -003, document 2 Declassification date: November 23, 2020 ifOP GEEAE:r C05500088 1'9P SloGRET CONTENTS Page THE PROBLEM ... 1 SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS l DISCUSSION 5 I. SOV.IET SPACE ACTIVITY DURING TfIE PAST TWO YEARS . 5 II. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE PROSPECTS . 6 A. General ............................................. 6 B. Organization and Management . ............... 6 C. Economics .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. 8 III. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL FACTORS ... 9 A. General .. .. .. .. .. 9 B. Launch Vehicles . 9 C. High-Energy Propellants .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11 D. Manned Spacecraft . 12 E. Life Support Systems . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 15 F. Non-Nuclear Power Sources for Spacecraft . 16 G. Nuclear Power and Propulsion ..... 16 Te>P M:EW TCS 2032-71 IOP SECl<ET" C05500088 TOP SECRGJ:. IOP SECREI Page H. Communications Systems for Space Operations . 16 I. Command and Control for Space Operations . 17 IV. FUTURE PROSPECTS ....................................... 18 A. General ............... ... ···•· ................. ····· ... 18 B. Manned Space Station . 19 C. Planetary Exploration . ........ 19 D. Unmanned Lunar Exploration ..... 21 E. Manned Lunar Landfog ... 21 F. Applied Satellites ......... 22 G. Scientific Satellites ........................................ 24 V. INTERNATIONAL SPACE COOPERATION ............. 24 A. USSR-European Nations .................................... 24 B. USSR-United States 25 ANNEX A. SOVIET SPACE ACTIVITY ANNEX B. SOVIET SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES ANNEX C. SOVIET CHRONOLOGICAL SPACE LOG FOR THE PERIOD 24 June 1969 Through 27 June 1971 TCS 2032-71 IOP SLClt~ 70P SECRE1- C05500088 TOP SEGR:R THE SOVIET SPACE PROGRAM THE PROBLEM To estimate Soviet capabilities and probable accomplishments in space over the next 5 to 10 years.' SUMMARY OF KEY JUDGMENTS A.
  • Space Station Freedom. a Foothold on the Future. INSTITUTION National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC

    Space Station Freedom. a Foothold on the Future. INSTITUTION National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 310 939 SE 050 885 AUTHOR David, Leonard TITLE Space Station Freedom. A Foothold on the Future. INSTITUTION National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC. Office of Space Sta.:Ion. REPORT NO NP-107/10-88 PUB DATE 89 NOTE 49p.; Colored photographs and drawings may not reproduce well. PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Aerospace Technology; Engineering Technology; Planning; *Satellites (Aerospace); Science Materials; *Science Programs; *Scientific Research; *Space Exploration; *Space Sciences IDENTIFIERS *Space Station ABSTRACT This booklet describes the planning of the space station program. Sections included are: (1) "Introduction"; (2) "A New Era Begins" (discussing scientific experiments on the space station); (3) "Living in Space";(4) "Dreams Fulfilled" (summarizing the history of the space station development, including the skylab and shuttle); (5) "Building a Way Station to Worlds Beyond" (illustrating an approach to building the space station); (6) ''Orbital Mechanics" (discussing the maneuverability of the space station, including robotic application);(7) "Evolving with Versatility" (describing blueprints for expanding a space station); and (8) "Foothold on the Future" (discussing the future plans of the space station program). (YP) **************************************-******************************* * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document. *********************************************************************A*
  • Development of an Inflatable Airlock for Deep Space Exploration

    Development of an Inflatable Airlock for Deep Space Exploration

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFLATABLE AIRLOCK FOR DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION Douglas A. Litteken NASA Johnson Space Center Thomas C. Jones NASA Langley Research Center AIAA SPACE Forum Orlando, Florida September 18, 2018 OUTLINE • Introduction • History of Inflatable Airlock Development • Design Considerations for Inflatable Airlocks • Generic Airlock Considerations for Space Applications • Inflatable Airlock Specific Considerations • Conclusions and Future Work 9/18/2018 D. Litteken, NASA/JSC/ES2 | AIAA SPACE 2018 2 OUTLINE • Introduction • History of Inflatable Airlock Development • Design Considerations for Inflatable Airlocks • Generic Airlock Considerations for Space Applications • Inflatable Airlock Specific Considerations • Conclusions and Future Work 9/18/2018 D. Litteken, NASA/JSC/ES2 | AIAA SPACE 2018 3 INTRODUCTION • Airlocks have been used for EVAs (extravehicular activities) since 1965 • Airlock designs including integrated, single, and dual-chamber, along with various volumes and hatch shapes have been used Type In Service Name Dimensions Volume Mass EVA Hatch From To /Chamber L x D (ft) (ft3) (lbm) Shape Opening (in) 1965 1965 Voskhod 2 Volga Inflatable 8.2 x 3.9 88.3 551 Circular 26 1965 1966 Gemini Capsule Integral 19.0 x 9.8 90 8490 Trapezoid 15 x 51 x 37 1969 1972 Apollo Ascent Module Integral 3.5 x 7.7 159 4740 Square 32 x 32 1973 1974 Skylab Airlock Single 12.8 x 5.4 322 16936 Trapezoid 15 x 51 x 37 1983 2011 Shuttle Airlock Single 6.9 x 5.3 150 827 D-Shape 40 1989 2001 Mir Kvant Airlock Single 19.0 x 13.1 1413 21164 Circular 39 2001 Present ISS Pirs Airlock Single 16.1 x 8.4 460 7892 Circular 39 2001 Present ISS Quest Airlock Dual 18.0 x 13.1 1200 21896 D-Shape 40 9/18/2018 D.
  • October 2011 Issue 2

    October 2011 Issue 2

    Issue 2 October 2011 All about the Chinese Space Programme GO TAIKONAUTS! Editor’s Note As promised, this issue is delivered as a special issue on the Chinese space station Cover Story programme. The flawless launch of the Tiangong 1 was really ... page 2 Quarterly Report April - June 2011 Launch Events There were two success- ful space launches in the second quarter of 2011. On 10 April 2011 at 4:47:04 Beijing Time, a Long March 3A (Y19) lifted-off from Pad 3 in Xichang Satellite Launch Centre, putting the Beidou IGSO 3 navigation sat- ellite into orbit. It was the first Chinese Dawn of the Chinese Space Station Era space launch of 2011 and the eighth op- A Textbook Launch erational Beidou satellite. The satellite History turned a new page at 21:16:03 Beijing Time on 29 September 2011, entered its working orbit ... page 3 when a Long March 2F (CZ-2F T1) rocket lifted-off from Pad 921 at the Jiu- quan Satellite Launch Centre in China. In contrast with other launch vehicles that took-off from the same pad on previous occasions, ... page 6 Proposal Mutual Rescue Operations Between the On The Spot Tiangong and ISS? Background Touch the Chinese Space Programme in Three Days The ISS began six-crew member opera- Report from the 4th CSA-IAA Conference on Advanced Space Technology tion in 2009, and the U.S. shuttle retired in Shanghai in July 2011. Crew transportation and An Open and International Conference emergency rescue now totally depends To the Chinese space programme and people paying attention to it, early upon the Russian Soyuz vehicle.
  • SOYUZ THROUGH the AGES the R-7 Rocket That Led to the Family of Soyuz Vehicles Launching Today Lifted Off for the First Time Onfeb

    SOYUZ THROUGH the AGES the R-7 Rocket That Led to the Family of Soyuz Vehicles Launching Today Lifted Off for the First Time Onfeb

    RUSSIAN SPACE SOYUZ THROUGH THE AGES The R-7 rocket that led to the family of Soyuz vehicles launching today lifted off for the first time onFeb. 17, 1959. The last launch, on Dec. 27, 2018, was number 1,898. Irene Klotz and Maxim Pyadushkin Vostochny Cosmodrome anufactured by the Progress Rocket Space Center in Sama- Evolution of Soyuz-Family Launch Vehicles ra, Russia, the medium-lift expendable booster originally was used for Soviet-era human space missions and later became the R-7 Soyuz Soyuz-L workhorse for the country’s civilian and military space programs. M 1957 First launch of the ICBM (SS-6 1966-76 (32 launches, 1970-71 (three launches, Sapwood) that served as a basis for including 30 successful, all successful, The first rocket officially named Soyuz was launched in Soviet/Russian launch vehicles from Baikonur) from Baikonur) 1966 and has since flown 1,050 times, of which 1,023 were including the Soyuz family successful. Production of Soyuz rockets peaked in the early Soyuz 1980s at about 60 vehicles per year. Medium-Class Launch Vehicle Russia began offering Soyuz launch services internationally in the mid-1980s through Glavkosmos, a commercial entity set up to sell Soviet rocket and space technologies. Manufacturer: Progress Rocket Space Soyuz-U/-U2 Soyuz-M Center, Samara, Russia In 1996, Russia created Starsem, a joint venture (35% ArianeGroup, 25% Roscosmos, 25% RKTs Progress, 15% 1991 Breakup of the 1973-2017 1971-76 (eight launches, Soviet Union, (859 launches, including all successful, from Plesetsk) Dimensions Arianespace) that had exclusive rights to provide commercial launch services on Soyuz launch vehicles.
  • Closing Comments

    Closing Comments

    Closing Comments The concept of a Shuttle supporting the assembly of a space station was not an entirely new idea when Space Station Freedom was authorized in 1984. Such concepts had been evaluated during the late 1960s, as the United States and the Soviet Union competed in the race to the Moon. By the early 1970s, the two nations were on more friendly terms and keen to participate in a joint project as Apollo was being phased out and a series of Salyut space stations were being introduced. The American proposal for an Apollo to dock with a Salyut was rejected, as was a proposal to have a Soyuz dock with Skylab. So Apollo docked with Soyuz in the summer of 1975. That program was so successful that talks began almost immediately to assess the pros- pects for a Shuttle-Salyut docking in the early 1980s. In parallel, NASA devised plans for the Shuttle to reactivate Skylab. Neither of these proposals bore fruit. By the early 1980s, the idea of using a Shuttle to assemble and resupply a large space station remained, and would become the lynchpin of the Space Station Freedom before plans for that, too, were revised. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 the assembly of Mir had been underway for several years. But Russia, which inherited the station and the spacecraft which serviced it, was hard pressed to continue the requisite funding. Looking back two decades to the 1990s, the merger of the American Shuttle and the Russian space station programs seems so logical, since they complemented each other.
  • Earth's Moon: Humanity's Gateway to the Solar System

    Earth's Moon: Humanity's Gateway to the Solar System

    Earth's Moon: Humanity's Gateway to the Solar System Wendell Mendell A Musing Delivered to the Annual LEAG Meeting Washington, DC September 14, 2010 What is a Gateway? • Literally…. – 1 a : 1GATE 1,2 b : a supporting frame or arch in which a gate is hung • Is the Moon literally at gateway? – No, of course not. What is a Gateway? • Metaphorically…. – a : GATE 4a b : a passage for navigation or travel: as (1) : any one of a limited number of points by which the traffic of a defined region can enter… • Is the Moon metaphorically a gateway? – NASA, specifically SMD, goes off into the solar system regularly and regards the Moon as something of a nuisance rather than an entrance. What is a Gateway? • Madison_Avenue_speak….. – A pathway purported to be the best or most convenient or most desirable entrance to a destination" (e.g., Webster, Texas, is the gateway to NASA) • So what are we trying to sell……and to whom? – Most people would answer “NASA”. If so, the specific target must be ESMD, because they have not yet gone anywhere, much less into the solar system (except for LRO). What is ESMD in the market for and does it have any money? – The title of this talk says “Humanity”. What is Humanity in the market for and does it have any money? – What is the relationship between NASA and Humanity? Timeline for Human(ity) Spaceflight • 1958 – 1968 NASA vs. USSR to LEO • 1968 – 1972 NASA Apollo to the Moon – Science added to Apollo – Samples returned, ➪ creation of Planetary Science – Transmogrification of <Apollo Generation> • {Moon becomes nonscientific object to NASA Science} • 1973 –1975 Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz (LEO) • 1972 – 2010 Space Shuttle (LEO) – Growth of Astronaut Corps • 1984 – International Space Station (LEO) • [1989 – 1992] SEI • {Emergence of Apollo Generation billionaires} • [2004 – 2011?] VSE Human(ity) Spaceflight Policy • 1958 – 1972 None.
  • The International Space Station: Legal Framework and Current Status, 64 J

    The International Space Station: Legal Framework and Current Status, 64 J

    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 64 | Issue 4 Article 3 1999 The nI ternational Space Station: Legal Framework and Current Status Rochus Moenter Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Rochus Moenter, The International Space Station: Legal Framework and Current Status, 64 J. Air L. & Com. 1033 (1999) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol64/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION: LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND CURRENT STATUS ROCHUS MOENTER I. THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION A. BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS HE DEVELOPMENT and construction of an International Space Station (ISS) began with President Reagan's an- nouncement in 1984 that the United States of America intended to build a permanently inhabited civil space station in the earth's orbit, later labeled "Space Station Freedom."' In con- nection with the announcement, President Reagan invited other countries, in particular Canada, Europe and Japan, to partici- pate in the project. This invitation was subsequently accepted by several countries, including the members of the European Space Agency (ESA).2 Some of the countries accepting were Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada through the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and the Govern- ment of Japan (GOJ). Many years of negotiations followed, mainly between NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and the re- spective national space agencies, regarding the construction, de- velopment and operation of an ISS.
  • Space Stations: Base Camps to the Stars*

    Space Stations: Base Camps to the Stars*

    Chapter 23 Space Stations: Base Camps to the Stars* Roger D. Launius† Introduction This paper reviews the history of space stations in American culture, from an 1869 work of fiction in the Atlantic Monthly to the present realization of the International Space Station (ISS). It also discusses the history of space stations “real and imagined” as cultural icons. From winged rocket ships, to the giant ro- tating wheels of Wernher von Braun and 2001: A Space Odyssey, to the epic, controversy-wracked saga of the ISS, the paper also discusses Mir, Skylab, and the Salyuts. It will close with a projection into the future as ISS is realized—or perhaps deferred—and perhaps future generations begin work on space stations elsewhere in the Solar System. The Attraction of a Space Station From virtually the beginning of the 20th century, those interested in the human exploration of space have viewed as central to that endeavor the building of a massive Earth-orbital space station that would serve as the jumping-off point to the Moon and the planets. Always, space exploration enthusiasts believed, a * Presented at the Thirty-Eighth History Symposium of the International Academy of As- tronautics, 4–8 October 2004, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Paper IAC-04-IAA.6.15.4.01. † Division of Space History, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. 421 permanently occupied space station was a necessary outpost in the new frontier of space. The more technically minded recognized that once humans had achieved Earth orbit about 200 miles up, the presumed location of any space sta- tion, the vast majority of the atmosphere and the gravity well had been conquered and that people were now about halfway to anywhere they might want to go.