CHAPTER TH

HUMAN SPACEFLIG

189

CHAPTER THREE

HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT

Introduction

NASA’s human spaceflight undertakings seek to bring the frontier of 

fully within the sphere of human activity, bringing people and mac

together to overcome challenges of distance, time, and environment.

chapter discusses NASA’s human spaceflight activities during the decade 

1989 through 1998, focusing on Space Shuttle missions and the Space S

It reviews the prior decade’s activities; presents an overview of events duri

1989–1998 decade; summarizes the management and budget for h

spaceflight at NASA; provides detailed information about each Space S

mission; describes Space Shuttle payload accommodations; and disc

development of the Space Station.2

Most material in this chapter is based on primary NASA documen

Web-based NASA materials. These include pre- and post-launch m

operation reports, press kits and press releases, key personnel announcem

and various reports and plans issued by the Agency. Where applic

activities are Shuttle-based, the Space Shuttle mission archives and m

chronologies have been consulted. The NASA projects have provided ple

amounts of data. Most have comprehensive Web sites, and many also p

information booklets and fact sheets. Partner agencies, such as the Eur

Space Agency (ESA), also publish printed and online material about thei

activities with NASA, as do the academic and private-sector institution

organizations that are the homes of researchers and investigators. Most b

1 NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 1000.1, NASA Strategic Plan (Washington, DC: National Aer

and Space Administration, 1998), p. 26.

2 Details of Spacelab missions are included in chapter 2, Earth Science and Applications, of Volu

the NASA Historical Data Book, 1989–1998.
material comes from the annual budget estimates generated by the NASA 

of the Chief Financial Officer and from federal budget legislation. 

government agencies and organizations including the General Accou

Office, the Congressional Research Service, and the National Oceani

Atmospheric Administration also issue reports and documents used as refe

material. Measurements are presented in the unit used in the original refe

(metric or English); conversions are in parentheses.

The Last Decade Reviewed (1979–1988)

The decade from 1979 through 1988 saw the inauguration of Space S

flights in 1981, opening a new era of human spaceflight that had been on 

since the end of the Apollo era. Twenty-seven Shuttle flights took place d

the decade; twenty-six were successful. The one unsuccessful flight, m

STS-51-L, set the tone for the remaining years of the decade, as the crew 

Challenger lost their lives in a catastrophic accident. Immediately aft

accident, NASA began a far-reaching examination of the tragedy, usin

findings of the independent Rogers Commission, appointed by Pre

Ronald Reagan, and the NASA STS-51-L Data and Design Analysis Task 

to implement a set of recommendations that improved both the technic

management aspects of the human spaceflight program and increase

emphasis on safety. Two successful Shuttle missions at the end of the d

marked NASA’s return to flight, as they demonstrated NASA’s resilience a

determination to learn from the worst accident it ever experienced.

The 26 successful Shuttle flights deployed a variety of payloads 

the government and commercial sectors and performed an array of scie

and engineering experiments. Four on-board Spacelab missions st

everything from plant life and monkey nutrition to x-ray emissions 

clusters of galaxies.

Space Station development also began during the decade. In 

President Ronald Reagan directed NASA to develop and build a perma

manned Space Station and have it in place within a decade. NASA joined 

partners in Europe (ESA), Canada, and Japan to begin developing Space S

Freedom. At the end of the decade, NASA and its partners had complet

Definition and Preliminary Design Phase and begun the Design 

Development Phase.

Overview of Human Spaceflight (1989–1998)

During 1989–1998, NASA’s human spaceflight activities focused o

Space Shuttle both as a launch vehicle and as a venue for a wide ran

experiments. NASA also focused on developing the largest free-flying f

ever, the Space Station. NASA launched 66 Space Shuttle missions durin

decade. These missions launched satellites into space, conducted on-
experiments, and performed rendezvous and docking exercises as part 

Shuttle-Mir program, the first phase of the International Space Station pro

Spacelab activities on board the Shuttle and Mir began in 1983 with STS

concluded in 1998. This series of international missions paved the wa

research aboard the Space Station. Over its 17-year flight history, 22 Spa

missions hosted payloads in practically every research discipline in 

NASA engaged except those associated exclusively with planetary explor

Between 1989 and 1998, 18 Spacelab missions flew.

This chapter summarizes each Shuttle mission and describes the on-

payloads and experiments on each mission. Descriptions of launched spac

as well as descriptions of payloads launched and retrieved by the Shuttle, c

found in the chapters relating to space science, applications, and comm

tions. Table 3–51 provides a summary list of all Space Shuttle mission

their major payloads.

Space Station development was undoubtedly the most ambitious N

human spaceflight activity during the decade. NASA initiated the Interna

Space Station program, but the orbiting laboratory was designed 

international undertaking, with participation by ESA, Japan, Canada, Italy 

as ESA member and NASA contractor), Russia from 1993, and Brazil 

limited extent). The project, initially named Space Station Freedom by Pre

Ronald Reagan in 1988, was the object of regular debate over its co

scientific merit and, at the start of the decade, had already undergone red

in an effort to reduce its cost. 

In 1993, President William J. Clinton, concerned by the cos

determined to reduce the federal deficit, ordered NASA to redesign the S

to make it simpler, smaller, and cheaper. The chosen redesign, with 

capabilities, was first called Space Station Alpha. It became the Interna

Space Station (ISS) with development spread over three phases. The IS

Russia as a full-fledged partner contributing the first element, the s

module, and a number of other essential components. The program 

streamlined construction and management in the United States by assi

Johnson Space Center to be the host Center and eliminating Freedom’s co

work package structure with its independent contractors.3

 Instea

consolidated all work under a single prime contractor, Boeing, 

responsibility for the entire project. 

The first phase of ISS development, lasting through 1998, con

primarily of the Shuttle-Mir program in which U.S. astronauts spent m

at a time aboard the orbiting Russian Mir space station. The purpo

these missions was to accustom American astronauts to living in spa

long periods, provide additional experience with spacecraft rendezvou

docking, and develop good working relations between U.S. and Ru

3 NASA used the term “host Center” to describe the role of Johnson Space Center in the Space 

program and the term “lead Center” to describe its role in the Space Shuttle program.
crew members. The second and third phases, which began at the e

1998, comprised ISS assembly. Phase II consisted of initial on

construction. It began with launch of the first ISS elements in 

providing initial living quarters and life support systems, and ending 

launch of a three-person crew that marked the beginning of permanen

habitation. Phase III, the “assembly complete” phase, was to cons

remaining assembly, including the addition of laboratory modules, atta

a robotic arm, and crews of up to seven members.4

The program experienced continuous problems and delays due b

financial problems with its Russian partner and to an overly ambitious sch

and significant cost overruns by the U.S. prime contractor. Russian con

tions were intended to be “enhancing” rather than “enabling,” but it was 

that the country’s contributions were needed for assembly to proceed. R

lacked the funds to pay their prime contractor, causing years of schedule d

for both individual elements and project completion. 

Although occurring years later than originally planned, on-orbit ass

began before the end of the decade, with successful deployment of the fir

elements in 1998. The Russian Zarya (paid for with U.S. funds) was launc

November from Russia; the first U.S. module, Unity, was successfully del

by Shuttle and joined with Zarya early in December 1998. 

Management of Human Spaceflight Programs 

The management and organizational structure of both the Space Shutt

Space Station programs changed frequently as the technical nature of the pro

evolved and as NASA sought to make the programs and their management 

efficient. Some of these changes merely consolidated existing organizatio

gave them new names that better reflected their functions; others eliminated 

sions or offices; other changes established new divisions or offices. The se

that follow describe many of these changes.

NASA used a letter designation (called a “code”) as an easy way to re

its top-level organizations, or “offices.” When an office was first formed, 

was usually a connection between the assigned letter and the office’s fu

(for instance, Code M was Manned Spaceflight), but in general, any conn

became less likely over time as offices were created and eliminated, and 

new letter designations were chosen merely because the letter was availab

the area of human spaceflight, the following letter designations were 

during the decade from 1989 to 1998 and are mentioned in this chapter:

• Office of Space Flight–Code M

• Office of Space Station–Code S

4 “Assembling a World-Class Orbiting Laboratory, Phases Two and Three,” http://spaceflight.nasa.gov

reference/fel/phases2_3.html (accessed November 21, 2005). Also “ISS Program Phases,” Boeing

www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/spacestation/overview/program_phases.html (accessed November 2
• Office of Space Systems Development–Code D

• Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications–Code U

For general information about NASA’s organizational structure

chapter 1 of this volume and the chapter titled Facilities and Installatio

Volume VIII of the NASA Historical Data Book for a description of 

NASA Center.

Management of the Space Shuttle Program

The Headquarters Office of Space Flight (Code M) managed the 

Shuttle program. Chapter 2 describes the various reorganizations as well a

sonnel assignments and transfers within that organization. Briefly, in 198

Office of Space Flight organized into three major divisions: Institutions, 

Systems, and the National Space Transportation System (NSTS) pro

NSTS was soon renamed the Space Shuttle program. In December 198

Office of Space Flight added management of the Space Station program 

other responsibilities, moving it from an independent organization.5

 In 

several organizations related to development of new space transportatio

tems, including Space Station development, moved from the Office of 

Flight to a new organization, the Office of Space Systems Development 

D). The operational aspects of the Shuttle program remained in Code M 

Spacelab and Space Station Freedom operations and utilization. In O

1993, the Office of Space Flight again assumed responsibility for the 

Space Station program. 

The Office of Space Flight reorganized in October 1995 into four 

offices: the Business Management Office, the Space Station Program Offic

Space Shuttle Program Director, and the Advanced Projects Office. A 

Agency restructuring in October 1996 merged the Office of 

Communications into the Office of Space Flight. In July 1998, the 

reorganization of the decade took place as the Office of Space Flight orga

into four functional offices: Operations, Enterprise Development, Bu

Management, and Development.

Although overall management of the Space Shuttle program resid

NASA Headquarters, several NASA Centers had particular responsib

relating to the program. Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas

designated the Space Shuttle Program Lead Center and managed develop

and operation of the Space Shuttle. Johnson Space Center was responsib

flight crew operations; mission operations; extravehicular activity; m

support; program safety and mission assurance; and design and develop

5 NASA Management Instruction 1102.5E, “Roles and Responsibilities–Associate Administr

Space Flight,” Effective December 29, 1989 (NASA History Office Folder 14829).
of the orbiter and crew-related government-furnished equipment. The Jo

Customer and Flight Integration office managed integration of the custo

payload into the Shuttle. 

The Space Shuttle program manager at Johnson had full responsibili

authority to operate and conduct the program. Among the elements with

person’s area of authority and responsibility were: overall program re

ments and performance; total program control, including budget, schedul

program content; approval of critical hardware waivers and deviations; b

authorization adjustments that exceeded a predetermined level; informin

Johnson Space Center director of program content and status; and integrat

payloads with the orbiter.

Representatives of the Space Shuttle program elements, projects

directorates supporting program activities were also part of 

management team. They were located at various NASA Centers. 

Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, was the launc

and primary landing site for the Shuttle. The Center was responsib

design, development, and operation of the launch and landing site fac

and support equipment; ground turnaround testing and maintenance 

orbiter; payload processing and installation into the orbiter; retrieva

disassembly of the solid rocket boosters; and conduct of all prelaunc

launch countdown activities required for each Space Shuttle mission

launch integration manager at Kennedy was responsible for final v

preparation and return of the orbiter for processing for its next 

managing the Certification of Flight Readiness process; presenting 

scheduling of the Flight Readiness Review; the final launch decision pr

including final authority to commit to launch; and chairing the M

Management Team before launch.

Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, throug

Space Shuttle Projects Office, managed design, development, 

integration of the solid rocket boosters, external tanks, and the 

Shuttle main engines.

Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, manage

worldwide NASA communications network, including the Tracking Da

Relay Satellite System used to maintain communications with the Shut

addition, Goddard oversaw the Get Away Special (GAS) program and s

other small payload carrier programs. Stennis Space Center in Missi

was responsible for testing the Shuttle’s main engines. 

Figure 3–1 shows the Space Shuttle program organization. Figur

is an expanded diagram showing the project elements assigned to Joh

Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, and Kennedy Space C

that together support the manager of the Space Shuttle program at Joh

Space Center in carrying out the program’s responsibilities. 
Figure 3–1. Space Shuttle Program Organization, December 1997.6

Figure 3–2. Space Shuttle Program Elements and Projects, December 1997.7

6 Derived from “Space Shuttle Program Description and Requirements Baseline; Program Defini

Requirements,” NSTS 07700 Volume I, Rev. G, December 17, 1997, pp. 3–17, http://pbma.nasa.g

public/pbma/bestpractices/bp_jsc_44.pdf (accessed June 28,2005). 7 Derived from “Space Shuttle Program Description and Requirements Baseline; Program Defini

Requirements,” NSTS 07700 Volume I, Rev. G, December 17, 1997, pp. 3–18, http://pbma.nasa.g

public/pbma/bestpractices/bp_jsc_44.pdf (accessed June 28, 2005).
Spacelab Management

Spacelab missions on the Space Shuttle and on Mir were the prec

to ISS activities. All major preparatory events leading to a Spacelab m

generally fell under the responsibility of four NASA departm

Headquarters, the Mission Management Office, the Mission Science O

and payload element developers. NASA Headquarters was gen

responsible for establishing mission objectives, sending out Announce

of Opportunity, and reviewing the experiment proposals. In the mid

the decade, the Life Sciences Flight program and the Space Sh

Spacelab Mission Management and Integration program in the Offi

Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications selected, de

developed, and conducted in-space medical and biological research. 

organizations also performed the mission planning, integration

execution of all NASA-Spacelab, NASA-Mir Research Program

attached Space Shuttle payloads.

The Spacelab management team was responsible for overseeing all a

of hardware integration and coordination of all mission-related su

activities. The mission manager served as the interface between the pa

element developers’ management and the Space Shuttle Program Off

maximize the mission objectives consistent with science requirement

Spacelab and orbiter system constraints. The Mission Science Offic

responsible for organizing and coordinating all activities associated 

payload specialist selection and experiment development. The payload el

developers, reporting to the mission manager, were responsible for the d

fabrication, test, and formal turnover of experiment hardware, software

experiment operating procedures. 

Other offices that provided oversight management functions for a Spa

mission included the Johnson Space Center Space Shuttle Program Offic

Marshall Space Flight Center Spacelab Management Office, Kennedy 

Center Launch Site Support Management, and Goddard Space Flight C

Communications and Data Support. 

Marshall Space Flight Center was NASA’s lead Spacelab Cente

provided project management oversight for Spacelab hardware. The C

developed selected Spacelab hardware and provided technical 

programmatic monitoring of the international Spacelab development 

Marshall was also responsible for managing many Spacelab missions, incl

developing mission plans; integrating payloads; training payload crew

controlling payload operations. The Payload Operations Control Center, 

controlled Spacelab, was located at Marshall.
Management of the Space Station Program

The Space Station program underwent numerous organizationa

management changes between 1989 and 1998 as it changed from Space S

Freedom to the ISS, brought Russia on board as a full-fledged partner, mov

center of operations from Reston, Virginia, in the Washington, DC, a

Johnson Space Center in Texas, and scaled down the size and complexity 

program. The following sections address the program structure 

management. Note that the phases used below represent chang

management or management structure and are used to organize the discu

They do not correspond with the NASA’s three formal phases of Space S

development discussed later in this chapter.

Phase I: 1989–1992

Beginning in 1984, the Office of Space Station (Code S), an indepe

program office, managed the Space Station Freedom program (see Figure 

Management was spread among three levels.

Figure 3–3. Headquarters Office of Space Station (Code S), December 1988.8

Level I comprised the Office of the Associate Administrator for the 

of Space Station (Code S) at NASA Headquarters. The Associate Admini

was responsible for overall program management and strategic planning. L

was responsible for defining and controlling program requirements, sch

milestones, and resources. The Level I divisions were Information Sy

Resources and Administration, Policy, Utilization and Operations, and Str

Plans and Programs. 

8 “Roles and Responsibilities–Associate Administrator for Space Station,” NASA Man

Instruction 1102.12A, Ch. 1, Attachment A, December 16, 1988.
Level II consisted of the Space Station Program Office in Reston, Vir

It was responsible for development of the Space Station, the opera

capability of flight and ground systems, and the control of internal and ex

interfaces. The director of the Space Station program headed this office an

responsible for day-to-day management. Four offices—Safety/Pr

Assurance, Program Support, Program Integration, and Program Require

and Assessment—and five groups—Program Control, Program Inform

Systems Services, Program Utilization and Operations, Program Sy

Engineering and Integration, and International Programs—comprised Le

NASA’s accounting and procurement offices provided additional support.

Level III comprised the four work package Centers at the NASA 

Centers and their contractors. They were responsible for design, develop

testing, and evaluation; operation of hardware and software systems; and ele

evolution, and engineering support. A Space Station Project Office was loca

each work package Center. The project manager of each Level III office re

to the director of the Space Station program at Level II. Figure 3–4 show

three-tiered structure as it existed in April 1989. 

Figure 3–4. Tiered Space Station Organizational Structure, April 1989.9

9 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook (Washington, DC: Technical & Administrative 

Corporation, 1989), p. 10.
Level III Field Centers

Marshall Space Flight Center 

Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, was the 

Package 1 Center. Work Package 1 included the design and manufacture 

astronauts’ living quarters (Habitation Module); the U.S. Laboratory M

and logistics elements for resupply and storage; node structures connecti

modules; the Environmental Control and Life Support System; and the In

Thermal Control and Audio/Video Systems in the pressurized modules. 

Marshall also provided technical direction for the design and develo

of the engine elements of the propulsion system and was responsib

operations capability development associated with the Station’s pa

operations and planning. Boeing Aerospace was the Work Package 1 

contractor. Figure 3–5 shows the Marshall Space Station organization.

Figure 3–5. Marshall Space Flight Center Space Station Organization, April 1989

Johnson Space Center 

Johnson Space Center, near Houston, Texas, was responsible for man

the design, development, test, and engineering of Work Package 2 

elements and systems. These included the integrated truss assembly, prop

assembly, mobile transporter system, outfitting of the resource node stru

provided by Work Package 1, extravehicular system, and the external th

control system. The extravehicular activity system included the extraveh

mobility unit (the spacesuit), associated life support, and other su

equipment. Johnson was also responsible for the attachment system

docking the Space Shuttle with the Space Station as well as the attac

10 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook, 1989, p. 33.
systems needed for logistics supply modules; the guidance, navigation

control system; the communications and tracking system; the data manag

system; and the airlocks. The Center’s prime contractor was McD

Douglas Astronautics.

Johnson provided technical direction for the design and development 

human space subsystems. These included crew quarters restraints and mo

aids; health care; operational and personal equipment; portable emer

provisions; workstations; galley and food management; personal hy

lighting; wardroom; stowage; and housekeeping/trash management. It wa

responsible for providing a portion of the Canadian Space Agency’s M

Servicing System training for the Space Station crew and Johnson g

support personnel. Figure 3–6 shows Johnson’s Space Station organization

Figure 3–6. Johnson Space Center Space Station Organization, April 1989.11

Goddard Space Flight Center 

Goddard Space Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, was responsib

managing the design, development, test, and engineering of Work Pack

flight elements and systems. Goddard and its prime contractor, the Astro-

Division of General Electric Company, were to manufacture the ser

facility, the flight telerobotic servicer, the accommodations for att

payloads, and the U.S. uncrewed free-flyer platforms. However, as part 

1991 reorganization, Work Package 3 and Goddard’s participation in the 

Station Freedom program were terminated. Figure 3–7 shows Goddard’s 

Station organization as of 1989.

11 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook, 1989, p. 50.
Figure 3–7. Goddard Space Flight Center Space Station Organization, April 1989.

Lewis Research Center

Lewis Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, was responsible for the 

Package 4 portions of the Space Station, consisting of the design 

development of the entire electric power system; photovoltaic power gene

subsystem; energy storage subsystem; solar power module; and primary 

distribution. The Power Systems Facility at Lewis provided the capabi

develop, test, and evaluate prototype power systems hardware for the pro

Figure 3–8 shows Lewis’s Space Station organization. 

Figure 3–8. Lewis Research Center Space Station Organization.13

12 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook, 1989, p. 54. 13 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook, 1989, p. 70.
Kennedy Space Center 

Although not a work package Center, the Kennedy Space Station P

Office was devoted to Space Station systems engineering and integration, g

support equipment management, operations and customer support, p

control, and logistics systems. Because NASA was the Agency responsib

integrating both international and U.S. elements and systems with the S

Kennedy was the focal point for prelaunch and launch activities. The Cente

responsible for launch sites; launch site common ground support equip

facilities to support prelaunch and postlanding processing; payload processin

logistics; management and operations of integrated logistics systems; an

Space Station Processing Facility. Technicians from the Space Station pa

would provide technical and hands-on support for the integration o

international elements at Kennedy. The Kennedy Space Station Freedo

teams would provide launch site final acceptance testing to verify 

interfaces, provide confidence tests of critical systems, and verify end-

operations between the flight elements and ground control Centers. Figur

shows Space Station project organization at Kennedy.14

Figure 3–9. Kennedy Space Center Space Station Organization, April 1989.15

14 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook (Washington, DC: Technical & Administrative Services Corp

1992), pp. 9, 24–71.

15 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook, 1989, p. 74.
Space Station Management

James B. Odom was Associate Administrator for the Office of Space S

at NASA Headquarters from March 1988 until his retirement on April 30, 

When Odom retired, Thomas L. Moser served briefly as acting Ass

Administrator until he left NASA in mid-May 1989. On May 18, NASA 

Administrator Richard Truly named Dr. William B. Lenoir Ass

Administrator for the Office of Space Station effective 1 June. On July 13, 

he was also appointed acting Associate Administrator for the Office of 

Flight, filling the position held by Truly, before he became NASA Adminis

Truly asked Lenoir to develop a plan to consolidate the Office of Space Flig

the Office of Space Station. Henry Hartsfield was assigned temporary d

direct the Space Flight/Space Station Integration Office, replacing Robert Pa

In Reston, Virginia, E. Ray Tanner became Director of the Space S

Freedom Program Office on January 3, 1989.17 On May 18, 1989, Truly n

Richard Kohrs Director of Space Station Freedom at NASA Headquarter

Tanner Deputy Director of Space Station Freedom Program and Operati

Reston, Virginia. James Sisson was named as acting Deputy Director f

Space Station Freedom Program Office, moving from his position as D

Program Manager for the Space Station Freedom Program Office.18

At the beginning of October 1989, Sisson, moved from acting D

Director, Program and Operations of the Space Station Freedom Pro

Office, to the position of Deputy Manager, Space Station Freedom Progra

Operations. Robert W. Moorehead became the new Deputy Director, Pro

and Operations, of the Space Station Freedom Program Office.19

In November 1989, Truly announced the consolidation of the Space S

Program and Space Shuttle Program into a combined organization nam

Office of Space Flight (Code M), effective December 1989.20 (See Figure 

chapter 2 of this volume.) The combined organization made sense, N

explained, because the Space Station would be launched using the Shutt

assembled in-orbit. Having both activities under a single Ass

Administrator would improve communications and decision making in s

key areas, including the assembly sequence and Space Shuttle-Space S

interfaces. In addition, the astronauts who would assemble and opera

Station would more directly influence its design.21

16 The integration office had been established in 1987 to facilitate integration of the Space Station 

Space Transportation System.

17 “Tanner Named Director Space Station Freedom Program,” NASA News Release 

December 29, 1988 (NASA History Office Folder 009610).

18 “Space Station Program Leadership Selected by Truly,” NASA News Release 89–77, May 1

(NASA History Office Folder 009610). Tanner retired from NASA on July 15, 1989.

19 “Moorehead Named Space Station Freedom Program Deputy,” NASA News Release 

October 2, 1989 (NASA History Office Folder 009610).

20 NASA Management Instruction 1102.5E, “Roles and Responsibilities–Associate Administr

Space Flight,” Effective December 29, 1989 (NASA History Office Folder 14829).

21 Office of Space Flight, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Space Station L

Management and Integration Status,” June 1990, pp. 4–6 (NASA History Office Folder 009524).
Richard Kohrs headed the Space Station Freedom Program Office, one 

two major divisions in the Office of Space Flight. Richard A. Thorson, at Jo

Space Center, became Deputy Program Manager of Space Station Fre

Systems Integration Office. Level II Integration Offices were establish

Marshall Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Center. James Sisson b

Manager of the Element Integration Office at Marshall. Jesse F. Goree, Jr., b

acting Manager of the Systems Integration Office at Johnson. Figure 3–10 

the management structure of the Space Station Freedom Program Office as o

1990. It shows the same tiered structure that had been in place since the prog

inception. Level I provided overall program direction and policy. Level II pro

day-to-day management and overall system engineering and integration

Level III Field Center project offices directed the design and development 

hardware and software, which was performed by the contractor teams below 

Figure 3–10. Space Station Freedom Program Office, May 1990.22

In December 1990, the Advisory Committee on the Future of the 

Space Program, led by Norman Augustine, issued a report that, amo

recommendations, advised separating operations from developmen

22 “Space Station Level II Management and Integration Status,” Office of Space Flight, N

Aeronautics and Space Administration, June 1990, (NASA History Office Folder 009524).
grouping the Space Station program with other development programs h

by a NASA Associate Administrator for spaceflight development. I

recommended locating “a strong and independent project office report

headquarters” near the NASA Center that had the most work for the pro

As a result, on September 13, 1991, Truly announced plans to create 

office to be named the Office of Space Systems Development (Code D

new organization would have responsibility for Space Station Fre

development as well as other development programs (see Figure 3–11

Office of Space Flight would retain responsibility for Space Station Fre

Spacelab operations, the Space Shuttle program, and other areas of space

operations.24 On October 3, Truly named Arnold D. Aldrich Ass

Administrator for the new organization, and Dr. C. Howard Robins, 

Deputy. Richard Kohrs was named Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Station Freedom. 

Figure 3–11. Office of Space Systems Development (Code D).

23 Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, “Report of the Advisory Comm

the Future of the U.S. Space Program, December 1990,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/au

racfup1.htm (accessed March 15, 2005). 24 “New Office of Space Flight Development Announced,” NASA News Release 

September 13, 1991 (NASA History Office Folder 009610).
Phase II: 1992–1994

On March 30, 1992, William Lenoir announced that he would be le

his position as head of the Office of Space Flight and retiring from NA

May. On April 28, the new NASA Administrator, Daniel S. Goldin, anno

the appointment of Major General Jeremiah W. Pearson, III as Ass

Administrator of the Office of Space Flight.

During 1992, Space Station Freedom continued to use a three-

management structure, although the program had moved from the Off

Space Flight (Code M) to the newly established Office of Space Sy

Development (Code D). Responsibilities of the three levels remained essen

unchanged after the move, with the exception that there were now only 

Work Package centers—Marshall Space Flight Center, Johnson Space C

and Lewis Research Center.25 Level I consisted of the Associate Admini

for the Office of Space Systems Development (Code D) at NASA Headqu

Level II, the Deputy Director, Program and Operations in Reston, Virgini

Level III, the NASA Field Centers’ Space Station Freedom Project Office

Figure 3–12). The managers of these Level III project offices reported 

Deputy Director of the Space Station program on Level II. 

Outside the Work Package structure, the Johnson Mission Oper

Directorate was responsible for training of Space Station Freedom crew 

ground controllers and for around-the-clock operational support of the 

Station. Kennedy Space Center was responsible for processing of payloa

flights to Freedom on the Shuttle. This included the required asse

servicing, integration and testing of payload hardware and software, an

requisite operations associated with a Shuttle launch. Contractors 

responsible for design; development; testing; evaluation; operation of har

and software systems; and element, evolution, and engineering suppo

number of international partners were also providing various Station elem

Figure 3–13 maps the three Work Packages and the contributions o

international partners with the various Space Station Freedom eleme

published the 1992 Space Station Freedom Strategic Plan.26

At this time, the Level II program office headed by Richard Kohr

located at NASA Headquarters. On December 1, 1992, NASA announc

intention to consolidate some management functions and move 

Headquarters-based program office, led by Kohrs, to Reston, Virginia. N

also announced that the Agency would create a contractor-led joint v

integration team based at Johnson Space Center and staffed by the three S

25 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook, 1992, p. 8. Goddard Space Flight Center and it

contractor, GE Astro-Space, originally were to manufacture the servicing facility, the flight tel

servicer, accommodations for attached payloads, and the U.S. uncrewed free-flyer platforms. How

1991, these elements were either terminated or transferred to other NASA organizations, and th

Package was dissolved.

26 NASA Space Station Freedom Strategic Plan 1992 (undated), p. 19 (NASA History Office Folder 
Figure 3–12. Space Station Freedom Three-Level Program Management, 1992.

Figure 3–13. Space Station Freedom Work Package and International Partner 

Development Responsibilities.27

27 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook, 1992, p. 22.
Station prime contractors—Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and Rocketd

and Grumman’s Space and Electronics Group, which had an engineerin

integration contract with the office in Reston, Virginia. The team would e

the “successful building and deployment” of the Space Station.28

In early 1993, President William J. Clinton called for NASA to redesi

Space Station, reducing the complexity of both the Station itself a

management structure to reduce cost and produce greater returns on NA

investment.29 In March, Administrator Goldin announced a number of ch

relating to the redesigned Station, given the name Space Station Alpha. 

changes affected the Station’s management as well as its workforce lev

location. In July, Goldin announced that Bryan O’Connor would head the 

Station transition to the redesigned Station. Goldin also stated that the nu

of civil servants needed for the Space Station would be reduced 

approximately 2,300 to 1,000. At the same time, NASA announced that it 

recruit 300 positions to staff the new Space Station Program Office at 

Center “yet to be determined.” In August, Goldin announced the select

Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, as host Center and Boeing 

prime contractor. The new program office had all implemen

responsibilities: the design, development, and the physical and ana

integration of the Space Station as the program evolved into operations

new organization structure would have about 1,000 civil servants, consist

about 300 civil servants at the program office at Johnson and the othe

positions spread among all involved NASA Centers, including John

Approximately 800 Space Station contractors working near the Reston 

either lost their jobs or were invited to relocate.

In September 1993, Space Station Director Kohrs retired from NAS

October, Goldin announced that the Space Station program would move 

the Office of Space Systems Development (Code D) back to the Office of 

Flight (Code M). Jeremiah W. Pearson III managed the integration of th

programs. William Shepherd became Space Station Program Manag

Johnson Space Center. O’Connor, Director of the Space Station transition

named acting Space Station Program Director. 

Phase III: 1994–1998

A number of management changes took place in January 1994 as 

Station Alpha transitioned into the ISS. Wilbur C. Trafton became D

Associate Administrator for the Space Station.31 Trafton was assist

28 “Management Changes Made to Space Station Program,” NASA News Release 

December 1, 1992 (NASA History Office Folder 009610).

29 “Organizational Changes to Enhance Programs, Relations,” NASA News Release 

March 11, 1993. “Special Announcement,” March 11, 1993 (NASA History Office Folder 009610)

30 “Space Station Host Center and Prime Contractor Announced,” NASA News Release 

August 17, 1993 (NASA History Office Folder 009610).

31 Trafton was the sixth person to run the Space Station program since it began in 1984. His pred

were John Hodge, Philip Culbertson, Andrew Stofan, James Odom, and most recently, Richard Ko
Randy Brinkley at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Brinkle

appointed Space Station Program Manager responsible for managin

United States-Russian activities and working with Russia to impl

United States-Russian activities for Phase I and Phase II of the Space S

program.32 William Shepherd was named Deputy Program Manag

Johnson. Pamela McInerney served as acting head of the Space S

Headquarters Office during much of 1994. After McInerney left the po

it remained vacant until Joyce Carpenter took the position in early 1995

was replaced in the fall of 1995 by Gretchen McClain.

In October 1995, the Office of Space Flight reorganized with the g

simplifying its structure and increasing its organizational efficiency. Figure 

shows its structure in October 1995.

Figure 3–14. Office of Space Flight (Code M), October 1995.

In January 1996, Trafton assumed additional responsibilities, first beco

acting Associate Administrator for the Office of Space Flight at N

Headquarters and then Associate Administrator in March. Andrew 

became acting Space Station Program Director until Gretchen McClain 

over in January 1997. Other changes at the same time included naming W

Shepherd Deputy Manager for Space Station International Affairs to le

32 Phase I and Phase II of the Space Station program consisted of the Shuttle-Mir flights and the fir

Space Station assembly flights. See the detailed description of Space Station development late

chapter.
integration of all Russian issues for the Station. Douglas Cooke, Manager 

Vehicle Office, was named acting Deputy Manager for the program. D

Kross took Cooke’s place as acting Manager of the Vehicle Office, and 

Hansen was named acting Deputy Manager of the Vehicle Office.33 In 

Program Manager Randy Brinkley established three new positions to 

prepare for launch and flight operations: Kevin Chilton became Depu

operation, Douglas Cooke was named Deputy for technical developmen

Dan Tam became acting Deputy for business management.34

In November 1997, Trafton resigned from NASA, leaving his posit

Associate Administrator of the Office of Space Flight. In January 

Administrator Goldin named Joseph Rothenberg, Director of Goddard 

Flight Center, to the job. Rothenberg became NASA’s fourth human space

Associate Administrator in little more than three years, closing out this de

Life Sciences and Microgravity Sciences Management

Life sciences and microgravity sciences were closely tied to h

spaceflight. The 1992 Space Life Sciences Strategic Plan stated that NA

life sciences program “significantly contributed to NASA’s manned 

unmanned exploration of space” during the last 30 years. The plan also 

that the life sciences program maintained a “close working relationship w

Office of Space Flight on operational issues dealing with crew health . . 

with the newly formed Office of Space Systems Development in conducti

research and development to support the operation and utilization of 

Station Freedom . . .”35 Similarly, later in the decade, when NASA adopt

enterprise approach to organize its themes, the Microgravity Science

Applications Division and the Microgravity Research program supporte

Human Exploration and Development of Space Enterprise. 

Until early 1993, the Life Sciences Division was located within NA

Office of Space Science and Applications. The Life Sciences Di

focused on activities that dealt with understanding how living sy

responded to the space environment; the search for the origin, evolution

distribution of life in the universe; the development of the scientifi

technological foundations for expanding the human presence beyond 

orbit and into the solar system; and providing operational medical supp

all space missions involving humans. Results from the division’s res

helped maintain astronaut health and productivity, understand the respo

33 “Space Station Office Makes Managerial Changes,” Space News Roundup, Johnson Space 

(January 12, 1996): p. 1 (NASA History Office Folder 009610).

34 “Brinkley Establishes Key Management Positions,” Space News Roundup, Johnson Space 

(June 24, 1996): p. 4 (NASA History Office Folder 009610).

35 Space Life Sciences Strategic Plan, 1992, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Sp

Sciences. 
biological mechanisms to weightlessness, and design controlled ecol

life support systems.36 In 1989, Arnauld Nicogossian led the division, h

become its head in 1983. 

The Microgravity Science and Applications Division was also a di

within the Office of Space Science and Applications. It appeared as a b

line within the larger Materials Processing in Space budget category

division aimed to foster the development of near-Earth space as a n

resource by exploiting microgravity and other unique attributes that mig

attained in an orbiting spacecraft. From 1989 to 1991, the division was 

acting Director Robert Schmitz. In 1991, Robert Rhome was appo

Division Director.

In March 1993, in a series of organizational changes, Adminis

Goldin announced a new Office of Life and Microgravity Science

Applications (OLMSA), designated Code U. The new office was to “a

the right emphasis in the [Space Station] redesign effort . . . The redes

Space Station must provide for significant long duration space resear

materials and life sciences during this decade.” It was also responsib

instituting NASA policies and procedures for the protection of h

research subjects.37

Harry Holloway was appointed the first OLMSA Ass

Administrator, and Nicogossian was appointed OLMSA Deputy Ass

Administrator for spaceflight activities, moving from his position as 

Medical Officer in the Office of Space Flight.38 Rhome continued leadin

Microgravity Sciences and Applications Division, which moved from 

Office of Space Sciences and Applications to OLMSA. The division’s 

was to increase understanding of the effects of gravity on biolo

chemical, and physical systems using both spaceflight and ground-

experiments. Joan Vernikos became head of the Life and Biomedical Sci

and Applications Division in the Microgravity Division, and Edmond R

was appointed initially as acting head of the Flight Systems Division an

as Division Director in 1994. In mid-1993, the Occupational Healt

Aerospace Medicine Division, led by Marshall S. Levine, was add

OLMSA. Earl Ferguson took over leadership of the Occupational Healt

Aerospace Medicine Division on an acting basis in the spring of 1994 

Levine became Director of the Occupational Health Office.

In May 1996, Holloway left his position, and Nicogossian be

initially the new acting OLMSA Associate Administrator and then Ass

Administrator in June 1997. Beth McCormick became Deputy Ass

Administrator. In early 1997, James Collier was appointed the new head 

Aerospace Medicine Division, which had split off from the Divisi

36 “Estimates Life Sciences Program Budget Summary,” Research and Development Fiscal Year 1989 p. 

37 NASA Management Instruction 7100.8B “Protection of Human Research Subjects”, August 8, 1

38 “Organizational Changes to Enhance Programs, Relations,” NASA News Release 93–044, March 1

Also “Special Announcement,” March 11, 1993 (NASA History Office Folder 009610).
Occupational Health and Aerospace Medicine Division. The 

Development and Commercial Research Division, led by Edward Gabri

also established. In 1998, Richard Williams moved to lead the Aero

Medicine Division; Mark Uhran became acting head of the Flight Sy

Office; and Raymond Whitten replaced Gabris as head of the 

Development and Commercial Research Division.

Money for Human Spaceflight 

This section discusses funding for Spacelab, Space Station, and lif

microgravity sciences. The budget tables that follow show budget reques

programmed amounts for NASA’s human spaceflight programs (other th

Space Shuttle, which is addressed in chapter 2, Launch Systems). Since N

typically submits an original and revised budget request before Congress a

a budget, both amounts are indicated and separated by a forward slash. W

no amount appears, there was no submission. Programmed amoun

determined after the end of a fiscal year and reflect the amounts ac

available to be spent. Occasionally, a budget category is established du

fiscal year. When this happens, there will be a programmed amount show

no budget request for that budget category. Funds for these activities often 

transferred from another project’s budget through a “reprogramming” of 

during the year. All amounts come from the annual budget requests prepar

the NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

Spacelab

Spacelab funds were included in the Space Transportation Cap

Development budget category in the Research and Development and H

Spaceflight appropriations. Some Spacelab funding also came from the Sh

Spacelab Payload Mission Management and Integration budget categor

from various life and microgravity sciences budget categories. Spa

development funding supported space-based and ground support equipme

hardware to expand Spacelab capabilities and ensure its continued opera

availability. Spacelab operations support funding included mission plannin

integration and flight and ground operations. It also funded smaller pay

including the Get Away Specials and Hitchhiker payloads.

The level of funding for Spacelab generally corresponded wit

number and complexity of scheduled Spacelab missions and whether 

would be received from other Spacelab participants, such as Japan 

Germany. The final Spacelab mission occurred in April 1998, and fun

Spacelab began to fall in FY 1997 and were reduced to a very low le

FY 1998.
Space Station

Funding for the Space Station mirrored the contentiousness of the 

program. President Ronald Reagan first proposed the program, and altho

generally received support from later presidents, members of Con

continued to question the validity of the program and the advisabil

spending large sums of money on a program whose scientific and po

benefits were doubtful. They also questioned NASA’s dependence o

contributions and cooperation of international partners who had their 

financial and political problems, particularly Russia. Thus, in almost 

session of Congress, motions were introduced to cancel the program; alth

all of these motions were defeated, on one occasion, the margin to con

the program was only a single vote. Congress kept an extremely close ey

tight rein on the program, generally providing only one year of fundin

time and requiring NASA to annually justify new funding requests.

The Space Station took a large portion of NASA’s Research 

Development and HSF appropriated funds, reaching a high of 42 perc

FY 1998 (see Table 3–1). This spending caused some resentment amon

science community, as some considered the research benefits of the or

laboratory limited. From FY 1989 to FY 1998, funds appropriated ann

for the Space Station grew from a low of $900 million to a high of almo

billion, a factor of more than two and one-half. This growth occurred 

though redesigns reduced the size and complexity of the Station. The fu

need brought Russia into the partnership to assume some of the expense

Space Station also received some funding from the Science, Aeronautic

Technology appropriation (not reflected in this table), which effec

increased the percent of the total NASA budget dedicated to the program

In 1993, President William J. Clinton ordered NASA to redesig

Space Station to reduce program costs while still providing signi

research capabilities. The chosen redesign came with a total budget c

$17.4 billion and a fixed annual budget of $2.1 billion, although these 

were not set in law. The President’s annual cap was below the annual c

of $2.8 billion identified by NASA Station designers in their three pro

design options. To accommodate the lower ceiling but stay within the 

billion total, NASA regularly slipped the delivery dates for both indiv

elements and a completed Station.

Beginning in 1995 when NASA’s appropriation categories 

restructured and the Research and Development appropriation categor

eliminated, Space Station-related activities were funded from the HSF a

Science, Aeronautics and Technology appropriations. Activities funded 

HSF appropriation included the development and operation of the 

Station and the flight support component of the Russian cooperation pro

of joint flights to Mir. Space Station-related funding from the Sc
Aeronautics and Technology appropriation provided for develop

operation, and science research associated with the scientific, technolog

commercial payloads being built for Space Station use or in conjunction 

the Mir program. The largest amount came from the Office of Lif

Microgravity Sciences and Applications to fund its experiments. In add

the Mission to Planet Earth program (NASA’s Earth Sciences pro

provided funds for an externally attached Space Station payload, an

Space Access and Technology program provided funds for technolog

commercial payloads for both external and pressurized Space S

deployment.39 When including all of these sources of funds, as well 

amount allowed in a new contingency account called Russian Coope

and Program Assurance and some funds in the Construction of Fac

account used for the Space Station, funding for the Station remained 

steady through 1997 and even rose slightly. 

Money problems, however, did not abate. In September 1997, B

admitted it was incurring millions of dollars in cost overruns and could h

$600 million overrun at Station completion.40 NASA also accepted some 

conclusions of the Cost Control Task Force (except for a cost estimate of 

million at completion), chaired by Jay Chabrow, and raised the cost to com

to $22.7 billion.41 NASA requested an increase of $430 million i

appropriation for FY 1998. Congress responded with $230 million. At th

of the decade, additional funds would be needed for NASA to comple

Space Station, whether they came from Congress or were diverted from 

NASA programs. 

Table 3–2 shows authorized and appropriated amounts for Researc

Development, HSF, and the Space Station from 1989–1998. Table 3–3 

the programmed amounts for the budget categories included in this chap

no programmed amount appears for a particular budget category or 

particular year, there was no amount indicated in the budget documents. T

3–4 through 3–43 show the amounts requested by NASA and the progra

amounts. Where the authorization or the appropriation was listed, 

amounts are provided. As explained in chapter 1, NASA submits an initial 

revised budget request to Congress before the budget is passed. W

available, both amounts are indicated in the column titled Budget Subm

with the two amounts separated by a forward slash. The programmed am

indicates the amount actually spent.

The move toward implementation of “full-cost” accounting, which N

began with the FY 1997 budget request, aimed to give a more accurate p

of actual project costs. This method of accounting associated all project co

39 “Analysis of Agency Support for International Space Station,” National Aeronautics and 

Administration Fiscal Year 1997 Estimates, p. SI–2. 40 Smith, Space Stations, 1999, p. CRS–6. 41 NASA Advisory Council, “Report of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force 

International Space Station,” April 21, 1998, http://history.nasa.gov/32999.pdf (accessed June 12, 2
project budgets, regardless of their source. Starting with projected FY 

costs, that is, the budget request, NASA showed budget figures using bo

traditional method being phased out and the new “full-cost” method. FY 

and prior years’ budget authority were recalculations reflecting the full c

all elements associated with a project.42 Where provided in budget docum

the following tables show an amount for “budget authority” as stated in t

1998 budget estimate. In this budget estimate, NASA restated the am

estimated for the Space Station to include the funds appropriated in FY 

and prior years to the current Science, Aeronautics, and Technology, f

Construction of Facilities, and former Research and Develo

appropriations as well as funds appropriated in the HSF appropriation

amounts from appropriations other than HSF are shown only in the “

Station-Research” budget category.43

The Space Shuttle

This section describes the Space Shuttle system and operation

details of each Shuttle mission between 1989 and 1998. For an overvi

the Shuttle’s development and a detailed description of events of the 

decade, the reader may consult the NASA Historical Data Book, Volu

1979–1988.44 As in the previous chapter, all measurements are given 

unit used in the original reference. Equivalent measurements in alte

units follow in parentheses.

The Space Shuttle system consisted of four main component

expendable external tank, two reusable solid rocket boosters, a reusable o

and three installed main engines, commonly called the Space Shuttle 

Engines (see Figure 3–15).45 The structure and systems of the Space S

have remained essentially the same since its inception. Detailed descripti

its components and systems are available in the NSTS Shuttle Reference M

(1988) and in the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual.

46

42 Budget authority represents the amounts appropriated by Congress in a given fiscal year that p

NASA with the authority to obligate funds. Obligation of funds legally commits NASA to pay con

and other service providers for materials and services. The ensuing obligations, cost incurren

expenditures (outlays) based on the budget authority can occur in a different fiscal year from the 

which Congress provides the budget authority.

43 “Full-Cost Budgeting,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration Fiscal Year 1998 

Estimates, pp. SI–6–SI–7.

44 Judy Rumerman, compiler, NASA Historical Data Book, Volume V, 1979–1988 (Washingto

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Special Publication-4012, 1999), pp. 121–238, 2

Also at http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4012/vol5/cover5.html. 45 The external tank, solid rocket boosters, and main engines are described in chapter 2, Launch S

of this volume.

46 NSTS Reference Manual, 1988, http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsref-

(accessed July 6, 2005); Shuttle Crew Operations Manual, OI–29, SFOC-FL0884, Rev. B, CPN-3

Space Alliance (January 13, 2003).
Figure 3–15. Space Shuttle Vehicle Configuration.47

The Space Shuttle could perform a variety of missions. These include

• Delivery of payloads to specified Earth orbits.

• Placement of payloads into parking orbits for subsequent transfer to 

orbits or Earth escape trajectories.

• Rendezvous and stationkeeping with detached payloads/space statio

• Monitoring and checkout of payloads.

• Return of payloads to Earth from a specified orbit.

• Routine and special support to space activities such as sortie missions; r

repair; maintenance; servicing; assembly; disassembly; and docking.

• Space Station assembly and operations support.

47 “Space Shuttle Program Description and Requirements Baseline,” NSTS 07700, Vol. I, Rev. G, D

17, 1997, pp. 3–15, http://pbma.hq.nasa.gov/sma/public/Jsc/bp_jsc_44.pdf (accessed June 28, 2005)
The Shuttle could transport payloads into near-Earth orbit 100 na

miles to 312 nautical miles (185 kilometers to 578 kilometers) above 

Acceleration during ascent never exceeded 3g. On its return to Earth, the o

had a crossrange maneuvering capability of about 550 nautical miles (

kilometers) either side of center. The orbiter normally carried crews of 

seven people, although it could carry eight-person flight crews. The 

mission lasted from 4 to 16 days in space.

All Shuttle flights launched from Kennedy Space Center in 

Canaveral, Florida. The Kennedy and Edwards Air Force bases in Cali

were the primary landing sites. Contingency landing sites were also provi

the event the orbiter needed to return to Earth in an emergency. 

On a typical mission, payload bay doors were opened soon after 

stabilization to allow the orbiter space radiators to dissipate heat. The crew 

conducted payload operations from the payload station on the aft flight 

Upon completion of on-orbit operations, the payload bay doors were c

and the orbiter was configured for return to Earth. The orbiter returned to 

by firing the orbital maneuvering system engines to reduce velocity. 

reentering Earth’s atmosphere, the orbiter glided to its landing at Ke

Space Center or, if conditions prevented landing at Kennedy, at Edward

Force Base. The incorporation of a drag chute and carbon-carbon b

allowed more missions to land at Kennedy. 

Shuttle Orbiter

For most of this decade, the Shuttle orbiter fleet consisted of four veh

Columbia (OV-102), the first operational orbiter; Discovery (OV-103

Atlantis (OV-104) were part of the original orbiter fleet. Endeavour (OV

replaced the Challenger in 1992. 

The orbiter was comparable in size and weight to a modern comm

airliner. It had three main engines and two smaller solid orbital maneu

system engines mounted in the rear that assisted during initial phases 

ascent trajectory. The main engines provided the vehicle acceleration 

liftoff to main engine cutoff at a predetermined velocity. In space, the re

control system engines provided attitude control. Figure 3–16 show

orbiter’s structure.

The orbiter was constructed primarily of aluminum. A thermal prot

system made of rigid silica tiles or some other heat-resistant material sh

every part of its external shell and protected it from reentry heat. Tiles cov

the upper and forward fuselage sections and the tops of the wings could a

heat as high as 650°C (1,202°F). Tiles on the underside absorbed temper

up to 1,260°C (2,300°F). Panels made of reinforced carbon-carbon co

areas that had to withstand temperatures greater than 1,260°C (2,300°F), s

on the nose and leading edges of the wings on reentry. 
Figure 3–16. Orbiter Structure.48

The orbiter structure had nine major sections:

1. The forward fuselage consisting of upper and lower sections tha

clamlike around a pressurized crew compartment

2. Wings

3. Midfuselage

4. Payload bay doors

5. Aft fuselage

6. Forward reaction control system

7. Vertical tail

8. Orbital maneuvering system/reaction control system pods

9. Body flap

Table 3–44 lists nominal orbiter characteristics. The individual m

tables later in this chapter include characteristics for each mission.

Endeavour, NASA’s fifth operational orbiter, was the newest addit

the Shuttle fleet. Congress authorized NASA to construct Endeavo

August 1, 1987. Table 3–45 lists Endeavour’s construction miles

Endeavour was named through a national competition involving stude

elementary and secondary schools who were asked to select a name 

upon an exploratory or research sea vessel. President George H. W. 

announced the winning name in May 1989. Endeavour entered servi

May 7, 1992, on the STS-49 mission.

48 Shuttle Crew Operations Manual, p. 1.2–1.
Endeavour incorporated a number of upgrades. They included:

• A 40-foot (12.2 meter)-diameter drag chute that reduced the orb

rollout distance by 1,000 feet to 2,000 feet (305 meters to 610 meter

• An updated avionics system including advanced general pu

computers, improved inertial measurement units and tactica

navigation systems, enhanced master events controllers and multip

demultiplexers, and a solid-state star tracker. 

• Improved nosewheel steering mechanisms. 

• An improved version of the auxiliary power units providing pow

operate the Space Shuttle’s hydraulic systems. 

• A ground cooling hookup to allow the payload bay to cool the 

pressurized logistics module. 

• Doublers on several wing spars to allow heavier payloads and two 

glove truss tubes having increased wall thickness. 

Endeavour was originally equipped as the first extended duration o

This feature was removed during its Orbiter Maintenance Down P

(OMDP) to save weight for ISS missions. During an OMDP, an orb

inspected, torn down, overhauled, and upgraded.

Orbiter Upgrades

Many of the improvements incorporated in the Endeavour were made 

other orbiters. Some changes, called Category I changes, were required b

the return to flight in 1988. Others were made when the orbiters came 

service for regular maintenance and modifications. A number of improve

outfitted the orbiters for visiting the Space Station.

Columbia was the oldest orbiter and the first to undergo a sche

inspection and retrofit program. It received modifications at the Rocke

Division of Rockwell International assembly plant at Palmdale, Calif

where it had been manufactured, after completion of STS-4, after STS-

after STS-9. These modifications added equipment needed to accommoda

PAM to be used for the STS-5 payload and to allow it to accommoda

Spacelab. They also removed the ejection seats, installed Orbiter Experi

Program packages and heads-up displays, and added provisions for 

navigation, as well as more than 200 other modifications.49

On August 10, 1991, after completion of STS-40, Columbia return

Palmdale, California. The spacecraft underwent approximately 50 upg

there, including the addition of carbon brakes, a drag chute, and imp

nose wheel steering; removal of instrumentation used during the test 

of the orbiter; and an enhancement to its thermal protection system

49 Dennis R. Jenkins, Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System, T

100 Missions, 3rd ed. (Cape Canaveral, FL: Dennis Jenkins, 2001), pp. 435–437.
orbiter returned to Kennedy Space Center in February 1992

October 8, 1994, Columbia went back to Palmdale, California for it

OMDP. Approximately 90 modifications and upgrades were made du

six-month period. Modifications included upgrades to the main landing 

thermal barrier; tire pressure monitoring system, and radiator drive circ

Repairs were made to the radiators where micrometeorites had 

impacts. Intensive structural inspections took place, and an upg

corrosion control coating was applied on the wings and rudder. 

overhaul left the vehicle in “like-new” condition. Columbia was too 

to fly either to the Russian Mir space station or to perform Space S

assembly missions and was not retrofitted for that purpose.

Discovery’s first OMDP took place beginning in mid-March 1992 af

return to Kennedy Space Center from Edwards Air Force Base whe

STS-42 mission landing took place. A drag chute was installed, an

orbiter received a complete structural inspection and refurbishment o

thermal protection system.50

Its next inspection was in 1995. Discovery departed from Kenne

September 27, 1995, arriving at Palmdale, California, to undergo a nine-m

OMDP. The vehicle was outfitted with a fifth set of cryogenic tanks, a

external airlock replaced its internal airlock. This gave it the capabil

participate in Shuttle-Mir docking missions and support missions to th

Discovery left Palmdale for its return to Kennedy, riding atop a modified B

747, on June 28, 1996.

Atlantis’s first OMDP extended from October 1992 through May 

while major work required for Atlantis to support missions to Mir took 

Modifications included installation of a drag chute, new plumbing line

electrical connections enabling extended duration missions, imp

nosewheel steering, new insulation for the main landing gear doors, mor

800 new heat protection tiles and blankets, and structural modifications 

airframe. Atlantis received an Orbiter Docking System, which included 

Russian and U.S. hardware. 

Atlantis’s second OMDP began in November 1997 at Boeing’s faci

Palmdale, California, where about 130 modifications were made.51 Along 

detailed nose-to-tail inspections and replacement of dated flight hard

workers installed thinner and lighter insulation that reduced the orbiter’s w

by about 1,000 pounds (454 kilograms), allowing the orbiter to haul h

cargo into space. An external airlock replaced its internal airlock, freei

50 “Chronology of KSC and KSC Related Events for 1992,” Part I at http://www-lib.ksc.nasa

archives/chronologies/1992CHRONO1.pdf, Part II at http://www-lib.ksc.nasa.gov/lib/archives/chron

1992CHRONO2.pdf (accessed July 6, 2005). 51 “Space Shuttle Atlantis Modification Work To Be Performed at Palmdale Facility,” NASA News 

97–11, January 16, 1997, http://www.nasa.gov/lb/centers/johnson/news/releases/1996_1998/97

(accessed April 28, 2005). Also “Atlantis Scheduled To Return to KSC after 10 Months in Palmda

NASA News, Kennedy Space Center (September 21, 1998), http://xs4all.nl/~carlkop/atlan

(accessed April 14, 2006). In 1996, Rocketdyne became part of the Boeing Company.
interior space in the middeck and equipping it for ISS docking rather th

docking with Mir. The Multifunctional Electronic Display System, or 

cockpit,” replaced the cockpit’s four cathode ray tube screens, mech

gauges, and instruments with full-color, flat-panel displays like those us

modern commercial airliners and military aircraft. The orbiter left Palm

California, on September 24, 1998, arriving at Kennedy on September 27.

Endeavour’s eight-month OMDP in Palmdale, California, began at the 

July 1996. About 100 modifications were performed. Approximately 10 of 

modifications were directly associated with work required to suppor

operations. The most extensive modification was the installation of an ex

airlock equipped with fluid and power lines to support spacewalks that rep

the original internal airlock. Other modifications included upgrades t

orbiter’s power supply system; general purpose computers; the thermal prot

system; installation of new, lightweight commander and pilot seats; other w

saving modifications; and a number of safety and turnaround enhancements

Payload Accommodations

Shuttle payloads ranged in size from those like the Hubble Space Tele

that weighed thousands of pounds to small payloads weighing less th

pounds (27 kilograms). The Shuttle provided several types of pa

accommodations including the payload bay and crew compartment, pa

carriers, and pressurized modules. For payloads carried in the payload 

structural supports enabling payloads to withstand the rigors of liftoff and 

to orbit were provided by main frames below the longeron sills on each s

the bay and by using payload attach fittings placed to suit the pay

dimensions. Large payloads had trunnions that mated directly with the 

fittings. Smaller payloads could be mounted on carriers that fit into the 

fittings. The Shuttle also provided a variety of services including power, th

control, communications and data handling, and displays and controls for 

interaction, provided through the avionics system.

The Space Shuttle accommodated three basic types of payloads: dedi

standard, and middeck.52

• Dedicated payloads, such as the Spacelab, Hubble Space Telescop

some DOD payloads, took up the entire cargo-carrying capacit

services of the orbiter. These large payloads occupied the entire pa

bay and required the Shuttle’s full performance capability.

• Standard payloads were the primary type of Shuttle cargo. Normal

payload bay could accommodate up to four standard payloads per 

The avionics system provided power, command, and data se

through a standard mixed cargo harness.

52 “Mission Preparation and Prelaunch Operations,” NSTS Shuttle Reference Manual (1988)

science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsover-prep.html (accessed July 22, 2005).
• Middeck payloads were small, usually self-contained packages req

a pressurized environment or direct crew operation. They were sto

compartments that could be as small as 2 cubic feet (.06 cubic m

allowing the opportunity for limited late stowage and early removal 

the Shuttle. This type of payload often consisted of manufacturi

space or small life sciences experiments. 

Displays and controls for payload operations were located in the aft 

deck, which was in the upper level of the crew compartment. The mid

located immediately below the flight deck, provided the crew living area

accommodations for middeck payloads. The orbiter payload bay 

approximately 60 feet (18.3 meters) long and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diam

The remote manipulator system (RMS) mechanical arm was mounted 

the left side of the payload bay. It was used for payload deployment, ret

special handling operations, and other orbiter servicing. The RMS was 

feet (15.3 meters) in length.53

Table 3–46 lists some of the Shuttle’s various payload accommodation

Small Payloads

The Shuttle carried a variety of small payloads allowing domesti

international educational, commercial, and government payloads to trave

space. The Small Self-Contained Payload (SSCP) program, popularly kno

the GAS program, launched its first payload, G-001, on June 27, 1982, on 

04. G-001 was built by Utah State University. Through 1998, GAS flew 

payloads on 35 missions.54 The GAS program was managed by Goddard 

Flight Center. 

Standard GAS containers had volumes of 5 cubic feet (0.15 cubic m

and 2.5 cubic feet (0.07 cubic meter). The 2.5 cubic-foot (0.07-cubic-m

container could house payloads weighing up to 100 pounds (90.7 kilog

The larger container could house payloads up to 200 pounds (45.4 kilogr

The GAS carrier provided limited mechanical and electrical interfaces fo

contained experiments, and the customer needed to provide all required b

data recording, and sequencing systems.55

The Code of Federal Regulation, 14 CFR 1214.9, governed the 

program and defined and provided the rules for participating in the pro

NASA issued the original SSCP rule in 1980. It established conditions o

53 “Space Shuttle System Payload Accommodations, Revision L,” NSTS 07700, Vol. XIV (2001), 

3-4, 5-10–5-11, http://shuttlepayloads.jsc.nasa.gov/data/PayloadDocs/documents/07700/Vol_

(accessed June 1, 2005).

54 “GAS Can Experiments,” http://members.fortunecity.com/spaceshuttlealmanac/gascans.htm (ac

July 2005). “Historical Information, Get Away Special,” http://www.wff.nasa.gov/efpo/ssp

history.html (accessed April 26, 2005). 55 “Space Shuttle System Payload Accommodations, Revision L,” NSTS 07700, Vol. XIV (2001), 
reimbursement procedures, and flight scheduling mechanisms for SSCPs 

on the Space Shuttle and ensured equitable allocation of space opportuni

educational, commercial, and U.S. government groups of users. 

NASA revised the rule in 1991 and again in 1992, creating 14 

1214.10, “Special Policy on Use of Small Self-Contained Payloads (SSC

Domestic Educational Institutions.” The revision provided two different p

structures: an increased standard flight price for commercial and interna

customers, while the original price remained for domestic educa

institutions. On April 23, 1999, NASA revoked both regulations.

In 1995, the SEM program was established to provide studen

opportunity to develop experiments not involving complicated engine

The SEM Carrier System was a self-contained assembly of engin

subsystems functioning together to provide structural support, p

experiment command, and data storage capabilities for microg

experiments. The system, consisting of a 5-foot (1.5-meter) “can

contained 10 experiment modules.56

The Hitchhiker program became part of the Shuttle Small Payloads P

(SSPP) in 1986. The program expanded GAS capabilities by offering cust

power, command, real-time data acquisition and transfer, crew contro

display capability. Hitchhiker customers operated their payloads from 

Hitchhiker Control Center at Goddard Space Flight Center using thei

ground support equipment (usually a personal computer) to send command

display data. Users’ ground support equipment worked in tandem 

Hitchhiker’s ground system, the Advanced Carrier Customer Equi

Support System, for communicating with their payloads. Contro

monitoring of payloads from remote sites also was used.57 The first Hitch

flight, designated Hitchhiker G-1, took place in 1986 on STS-61-C.

HH-Jr. accommodated experiments requiring power from the orbi

from internal batteries. A connection to the orbiter enabled the cr

command and check payloads using a laptop computer.

The Hitchhiker carrier system provided electrical power (28 volts 

command signals, and “downlink” data interfaces. It had provisions for 

payloads along the sidewall of the Space Shuttle payload bay, i.e., the lon

and on cross-bay carriers/platforms, and provided options for ejecting 

spacecraft from the Space Shuttle payload bay. Hitchhiker payloads 

contained in mounted canisters attached to mounting plates of various size

56 “Space Experiment Module,” Fact Sheet, http://www.wff.nasa.gov/efpo/ssppo/sem

about_facts.html (archived Web site accessed April 26, 2005). 57 “Hitchhiker Carrier System,” http://www.wff.nasa.gov/efpo/ssppo/hh/index.html (archived W

accessed November 15, 2005).
Spacelab

Spacelab was a non-deployable Shuttle payload that carried investig

from many scientific disciplines, including atmospheric science, solar sc

materials science, space plasma physics, the life sciences, and astroph

Sometimes a Spacelab mission carried experiments from several disciplin

other times, it focused on a single discipline. Spacelab fit into the S

orbiter’s payload bay. Spacelab’s modular structure allowed for a wide ran

configurations and objectives and enabled extended experiments to take pl

orbit (see Figure 3–17). An integral part of the Space Shuttle system, 

developed jointly by ESA and NASA and designed and produced by ESA

Figure 3–17. Spacelab on Orbit.

Spacelab’s four principal components were the pressurized labo

module, one or more open pallets that exposed materials and equipm

space, a tunnel to gain access to the module, and an instrument pointing sy

Electrical power, command and data management, caution and warning

environmental control and life support systems supported the Spacelab. F

3–18 shows Spacelab components. Table 3–47 presents characteristics 

Spacelab module.

58 When Spacelab was first proposed, the ESA was called the European Space Research Orga

(ESRO).
Figure 3–18. Spacelab Components.

The flight crew could control Spacelab experiments from the Sp

module or from the orbiter’s aft flight deck. Experiments located in the m

or on the pallets could also be controlled directly from the ground.59

The cylindrical pressurized laboratory module had a habitable, shirt-

environment and was available in two segments—a core and an exper

segment—that could be assembled as either a single segment (the core seg

or a double segment (the core and experiment segments, known as the 

module). Each segment was 13.5 feet (4.1 meters) in outside diameter and 

(2.7 meters) long. When both segments were assembled with end cones

maximum outside length was 23 feet (7 meters). The pressurized modul

structurally attached to the orbiter payload bay by four attach fittings cons

of three longeron fitting sets (two primary and one stabilizing) and on

fitting and was covered with passive thermal control insulation. The labo

equipment was mounted in racks and in other areas. Handrails were moun

racks, overhead, and on end cones. Foot restraints were also provided o

floor and on rack platforms. Crew objects could be temporarily fasten

Velcro patches throughout the modules. 

The core segment (also known as the short module when it was flown 

contained supporting systems such as data processing equipment and utilit

the module and pallets (if pallets were used with the module). It pro

laboratory space with floor-mounted racks and a workbench. When onl

segment was needed, the core segment was used. The experiment se

provided more working laboratory space and contained only floor-mounted 

59 Marsha R. Torr, “Scientific Achievements of the Spacelab Program: An Overview of the M

AIAA 94-4646, AIAA Space Programs and Technologies Conference, September 27–29, 1994 

Goddard Library Electronic Database).
It was flown only in conjunction with the core segment. The modules 

designed for a lifetime of 50 missions.60

End cones were bolted to both ends of the cylindrical laboratory segm

The truncated cones were 30.8 inches (78.2 centimeters) long; the large en

161.9 inches (411.2 centimeters) in outside diameter and the small end wa

inches (130 centimeters) in outside diameter. Each cone had three 16.4

(41.7-centimeter)-diameter cutouts, two located at the bottom of the con

one at the top. Feedthrough plates for routing utility cables and lines cou

installed in the lower cutouts of both end cones. 

The ceiling skin panel of each segment contained a 51.2-inch 

centimeter)-diameter opening for mounting a viewport adapter assembly. 

assembly was not used, the bolted-down cover plates closed the opening

Spacelab viewport assembly could be installed in the upper cutout of the a

cone, and the upper cutout of the forward end cone was for the press

module vent and relief valves. 

Spacelab pallets were platforms designed for large instrum

experiments requiring direct exposure to space, and systems ne

unobstructed or broad fields of view. Experiments could be mounted o

pallets or smaller special support structures if the instruments required exp

to space. For pallet-only missions, the support utilities for the instru

mounted on the pallet were housed in the Spacelab igloo, a temper

controlled housing providing connections for data gathering, communica

electrical power, and cooling equipment. Vertically attached to the forwar

of the first pallet, the igloo was 7.9 feet (2.4 meters) high and 3.6 fee

meters) in diameter.61

Because of the orbiter’s center-of-gravity requirements, the Spa

module had to be installed at the rear end of the orbiter payload bay. Equi

and crew passed through a pressurized tunnel between the crew compar

and the module. The tunnel was cylindrical with an internal unobst

diameter of 40 inches (101.7 centimeters) and assembled in sections to 

length adjustment for different module configurations. Tunnel lengths of 

feet (5.8 meters) and of 8.72 feet (2.7 meters) could be used. A “joggle” s

of the tunnel compensated for the 42.1-inch (1.7-centimeter) vertical off

the middeck airlock to the module’s centerline. There were flexible sectio

each end of the tunnel near the orbiter and Spacelab interfaces. 

The airlock, tunnel adapter, tunnel, and module were at ambient pr

before launch. The tunnel adapter permitted crew members outfitte

extravehicular activity (EVA) to transfer from the middeck airlock t

payload bay without depressurizing the orbiter crew compartment and m

If an EVA was required, no crew members were permitted in the Sp

tunnel or module.

60 “Spacelab Module,” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/spacelab/sl-elements.html (accessed December 1

61 “Igloo,” http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/spacelab/element-igloo.html (accessed December 13, 
Some Spacelab mission research required instruments to be pointed 

very high accuracy and stability at stars, the Sun, Earth, or other targ

observation. The instrument pointing system provided precision pointin

instruments of diverse sizes and weights up to 15,432 pounds (7,000 kilog

and could point them to within 2 arc seconds and hold them on target to w

1.2 arc seconds. The system consisted of a three-axis gimbal system mo

on a gimbal support structure and a control system. The control system 

based on the inertial reference of a three-axis gyro package and operated 

gimbal-mounted mini-computer.

The Spacelab command and data management system (CDMS) prov

variety of services to Spacelab experiments and subsystems. Most of the C

commands were carried out using the computerized system aboard Spa

called the data processing assembly (DPA). The DPA formatted telemetr

and transferred the information to the orbiter for transmission, rec

command data from the orbiter and distributed it to Spacelab subsy

transferred data from the orbiter to experiments, and distributed timing s

from the orbiter to experiments.62

The first Spacelab mission flew in 1983, the last on STS-90 in 1998

program ended because the experiments performed on Spacelab could n

performed on the Space Station. Table 3–48 lists Spacelab missions 

1989 to 1998.

SPACEHAB

During the 1980s, as directed by legislation and national space polic

commercial development of space became one of NASA’s chief objectiv

the late 1980s, NASA’s Office of Commercial Programs identified a sign

number of payloads to further this objective, which required a sufficient le

flight activity for their support. In September 1989, a NASA analysis conc

that planned Space Shuttle flights did not offer adequate middeck

accommodations for these payloads.

In February 1990, NASA initiated the Commercial Mi

Augmentation Module (CMAM) procurement through Johnson Space C

to provide support for these payloads. In November 1990, NASA awar

five-year contract to SPACEHAB, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, for the le

their pressurized modules, the SPACEHAB Space Research Laboratori

provide additional space by extending the Shuttle orbiter middeck in

Shuttle cargo bay for “crew-tended” payloads. This five-year 

arrangement covered several Shuttle flights and required SPACEHAB, I

provide for the physical and operational integration of the SPACE

62 Shuttle Crew Operations Manual, pp. 2.25-1, 2.25-3, 2.25-5, 2.25-10, and 2.25-18. 
laboratories into the Space Shuttle orbiters, including experimen

integration services such as safety documentation and crew training.63

SPACEHAB contracted with McDonnell Douglas’s Huntsville 

Division in Alabama to provide the design, development, and ph

integration of two space research laboratories. SPACEHAB also cont

with Alenia Aerospazio of Turin, Italy, to build the laboratories and d

and build their passive thermal control systems.64 These aluminum 

research laboratory modules carried commercial and other attached pay

on the Shuttle and were used for Mir logistics flights. SPACEHAB un

its first module in May 1992; it flew on its first mission, STS-57, in 

Table 3–49 lists Shuttle SPACEHAB flights.

The SPACEHAB pressurized laboratory augmented Space S

middeck experiment accommodations and provided Shuttle crew with a 

to carry out experiments. It was located in the forward end of the S

orbiter cargo bay and was accessed from the orbiter middeck through a t

adapter connected to an airlock. The module contained cooling, powe

command, and data provisions in addition to SPACEHAB houseke

systems (power distribution and control; lighting; fire and smoke dete

fire suppression; atmosphere control; status monitoring and control

thermal control).

A single module weighed 9,628 pounds (4,367 kilograms), was 9.

(2.8 meters) long, 11.2 feet (3.4 meters) high, and 13.5 feet (4.1 fe

diameter. It increased pressurized experiment space in the Shuttle orbi

1,100 cubic feet (31 cubic meters), quadrupling the working and st

volume available. Environmental control of the laboratory’s in

maintained ambient temperatures between 65°F and 80°F (18°C and 

and had a total payload capacity of 3,000 pounds (1,361 kilograms).

The SPACEHAB laboratory could be configured with middeck

lockers, racks, and/or a logistics transportation system to accommod

variety of experiments and equipment. It could accommodate up to 

SPACEHAB racks, either of which could be a “double rack” or “single 

configuration. A double rack provided a maximum capacity of 1,250 p

(567 kilograms) and 45 cubic feet (1.3 cubic meters) of volume, whe

single rack provided half that capacity. The double-rack was similar i

and design to the racks planned for use in the Space Station.65 Figure 

shows the dimensions and arrangement of typical SPACEHAB in

configurations.

63 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-57 Press Kit,” June 1993, p. 16, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shu

pk/Flight_056_STS-057_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed December 2, 2005). 64 E-mail from Kimberly Campbell, Vice President Corporate Marketing and Commun

SPACEHAB, Inc., December 13, 2005.

65 “Space Shuttle Mission STS-57 Press Kit,” June 1993, pp. 16–17, http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/

shuttle_pk/pk/Flight_056_STS-057_Press_Kit.pdf (accessed December 2, 2005).
Figure 3–19. Typical SPACEHAB Interior Configurations.

SPACEHAB offered three module configurations to accomm

specific mission requirements. Configuration 1 was connected to the o

using a modified Spacelab tunnel adapter and standard orbiter pa

support resources from the cabin and payload bay (see Figure 3–20)

SPACEHAB single module-to-orbiter tunnel adapter connection use

Spacelab tunnel adapter, the SPACEHAB transition section, and the Spa

flex section.

Configuration 2 allowed the SPACEHAB single module to be moun

a new trunnion location to accommodate the orbiter docking system (O

The module was connected to the ODS using a Spacelab flex section, th

Spacelab extension for Mir, the SPACEHAB long tunnel segmen

SPACEHAB tunnel segment, and another flex section. All SPACE
module subsystems remained the same as in Configuration 1 except 

lower air exchange rate with the orbiter and the addition of two ne

pressure relief valves.

Figure 3–20. SPACEHAB Configuration 1.

Configuration 3 was a double module consisting of one SPACE

module and one SPACEHAB module shell joined by an intermediate a

(see Figure 3–21). This configuration had the same tunnel arrangemen

attach points as Configuration 2, except for two trunnions moved farther b

accommodate the additional module. All SPACEHAB module subsy

remained the same as in Configuration 2 except for the addition of a fa

lights in the aft module segment.66

Animals in Space

Animals were a valuable part of space life sciences research and fl

space since the earliest days of the space program. All animal experi

aboard the Space Shuttle were housed either in the middeck area or 

laboratory research module specifically configured for the cargo bay. Two 

of enclosures were flight-certified for use with on-board animals. R

experiments were usually carried in middeck lockers configured with a

enclosure modules that could be loaded onto the Shuttle 12 to 18 hours b

launch and removed 3 to 6 hours after landing. Each module con

sufficient food for the duration of the mission and had an on-board water s

66 Shuttle Crew Operations Manual, pp. 2.24-1–2.24-2. 
Animal enclosure modules could not be removed during a flight and 

tightly sealed. Daily animal health checks were conducted during fligh

opening the locker cover containing the module and pulling the module fr

stowage position. The astronaut could observe the animals through the mo

transparent cover. These modules were originally developed by G

Dynamics for the Student Shuttle Flight Program.

Figure 3–21. SPACEHAB Configurations 2 (top) and 3.

The Spacelab module could be converted into an on-orbit res

center providing additional space for rodents and primates. The Res

Animal Holding Facility (RAHF) placed into a standard Spacelab d

rack with housing space for up to 24 rats or four 1-kilogram (2.2-p

squirrel monkeys. The facility provided environmental control, food, 

light, and waste management control for the animals. Unlike the s

animal enclosure module, the animal cages could be removed from 

RAHF and transported to a general purpose work area where the a
cages could be opened and the animals removed for tissue or fluid s

collection, administration of specific treatments, or euthanasia and 

collection. Primates were used only for the Spacelab-3 mission in 

1985, and NASA did not plan to use primates again.67

In 1997, NASA issued a document titled “Principles for the Ethica

and Use of Animals.” The document stated three principles to guide the 

animals in research: to use the appropriate species and minimum num

animals required to obtain valid scientific results, to consider the po

societal good and overall ethical value whenever animals were used, and th

minimization of distress, pain, and suffering was a moral imperative.68

The Space Shuttle Crew69

NASA selects astronauts from a diverse pool of applicants with a 

variety of backgrounds. From the thousands of applications received, only 

are chosen for the intensive astronaut candidate training program.

The first group of astronaut candidates for the Space Shuttle program 

chosen in 1978. In July of that year, 35 candidates began a rigorous trainin

evaluation period at Johnson Space Center to qualify for subsequent assig

for future Space Shuttle flight crews. This group of 20 mission scientist astro

and 15 pilots completed training and went from astronaut candidate sta

astronaut active status in August 1979. Six of the 35 were women and fou

minorities. Through 1998, nine additional groups of pilots and mission spec

were added: 19 in 1980; 17 in 1984; 13 in 1985; 15 in 1987; 23 in 1990; 

1992; 19 in 1995; 35 in 1996; and 25 in 1998. In addition, payload spec

who were individuals other than NASA astronauts chosen to meet speci

requirements, completed the crews. Payload specialists could be from the U

States or from other countries. International crew members are indicated 

mission tables that follow along with the agency or country that sponsored t

Astronauts participating in the Russian Mir program received R

language training before transferring to the Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Tr

Center for approximately 13 months. Russian language courses continued 

Gagarin Center until the astronaut reached the level required to begin tec

training. Russian technical training included theoretical training on R

vehicle design and systems, EVA training, scientific investigations 

experiments, and biomedical training. Four weeks before the Shuttle launc

traveled to Mir, the astronaut returned to Johnson Space Center to trai

integrate as part of the Shuttle crew. 

67 Gary L. Borkowski, William W. Wilfinger, and Philip K. Lane, “Laboratory Animals in Scien

Sciences Research,” Animal Welfare Information Center Newsletter 6, no. 2-4 (Winter 1995/1996

www.nal.usda.gov/awic/newsletters/v6n2/6n2borko.htm (accessed November 22, 2005). 68 “NASA Principles for the Ethical Care and Use of Animals,” http://grants.nih.gov/gran

references/dc97-2.htm (accessed November 22, 2005). Also “Care and Use of Animals,” NASA 

Directive (NPD) 8910.1, Effective March 23, 1998 (canceled).

69 Astronaut Selection and Training, Information Summaries, NP-1997-07-006 JSC, July 1997

spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/np199707006jsc.pdf (accessed July 10, 2005).
Commander/Pilot Astronauts

Pilot astronauts served as both Space Shuttle commanders and 

During flight, the commander had on-board responsibility for the vehicle, 

mission success, and safety of the flight. The pilot assisted the comman

controlling and operating the vehicle and might assist in deploying 

retrieving satellites using the remote manipulator system mechanical arm.

Mission Specialist Astronauts

Mission specialist astronauts worked with the commander and pilot, a

specialists had overall responsibility for coordinating Shuttle operations 

areas of Shuttle systems, crew activity planning, consumables usage

experiment/payload operations. Mission specialists were trained in the det

the orbiter on-board systems, as well as the operational characteristics, m

requirements and objectives, and supporting equipment and systems for e

the experiments conducted on their assigned missions. Mission spec

performed EVAs, operated the remote manipulator system, and 

responsible for payloads and specific experiment operations.

Payload Commander

The payload commander was an experienced mission specialist wh

been designated to represent the NASA Flight Crew Operations Directora

the Astronaut Office on a Spacelab or complex payload flight. This indi

had full authority to work with the payload mission managers to identif

resolve issues associated with payload assignment and integration, tra

crew member qualification, and operational constraints.70

Payload Specialists

Payload specialists were persons other than NASA astronauts (incl

foreign nationals) who had specialized on-board duties. They were 

scientists or engineers selected by their employer or country for their exp

in conducting a specific experiment or commercial venture on a Space S

mission.71 They might be added to Shuttle crews if activities having u

requirements were involved and more than the minimum crew size o

were needed. First consideration for additional crew members was giv

qualified NASA mission specialists. When payload specialists were req

they were nominated by NASA, the foreign sponsor, or the desig

payload sponsor. In the case of NASA or NASA-related payload

nominations were based on the recommendations of the appro

70 Shuttle Crew Operations Manual, p. 2.25-1. 71 Astronaut Fact Book, NASA Information Summaries, NP-2005-01-001 JSC, January 2005

spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/astro.pdf (accessed November 30, 2005).
Investigator Working Group. Although payload specialists were not p

the Astronaut Candidate Program, they were required to have the appro

education and training related to the payload or experiment. All appl

must meet certain physical requirements and pass NASA space ph

examinations with varying standards depending on classification.

Crew Services

Shuttle crew members provided services in three specific areas: E

intravehicular activity, and in-flight maintenance. During EVAs, crew me

donned pressurized spacesuits and life support systems, moved outsid

protective environment of a spacecraft’s pressurized cabin, and perfo

various payload-related activities in the microgravity environment of 

often outside the payload bay. The current spacesuit, designed for a 

maximum duration of 7 hours, provided environmental protection, mobilit

support, and communications. Figure 3–22 shows the extravehicular mo

unit (EMU), or spacesuit.

There were three basic categories of EVA: scheduled, unscheduled

contingency. A scheduled EVA was any EVA incorporated into the flight p

complete a specific mission objective, for instance, repairing a satell

testing equipment. (Figure 3–23 shows the EVA on the first Hubble 

Telescope servicing mission.) A quick-response EVA was a type of sche

EVA that must be performed within a few hours after discovering a probl

was usually associated with payload deployment. This type of EVA 

prepared for and scheduled before the flight but might not be performed 

problem did not materialize. An unscheduled EVA was conducted to ac

payload operation success or to advance overall mission accomplishme

contingency EVA was also unscheduled but was needed to ensure safe ret

the orbiter and crew. 

Even when an EVA was not scheduled, at least two crew members m

prepared to perform a contingency EVA if the situation made it necessa

example: if payload bay doors failed to close properly and needed m

assistance or if equipment needed to be jettisoned from the orbiter. Beginn

1998, EVAs were an important part of Space Station assembly. Earlier

astronauts had participated in spacewalks while on the Russian space s

Mir. On April 29, 1997, Jerry Linenger became the first American to con

spacewalk from a foreign space station and in a non-American-made spa

in his 5-hour spacewalk.72 Table 3–50 lists EVAs performed by U.S. S

crews between 1989 and 1998.

72 “Linenger Increment: A Spacewalk and a Fire, History, Shuttle Flights and Mir Increments,

spaceflight1.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-Mir/history/h-f-linenger.htm (accessed July 5, 2005).
Figure 3–22. Extravehicular Mobility Unit (Spacesuit).73

Intravehicular activity (IVA) included crew activities occurring with

orbiter crew compartment or a customer-provided pressurized module such 

attached pressurized module in the payload bay or a free flying module d

with the orbiter. IVA operations included module activation/deactivatio

orbit operations, and monitoring while hatches were open, allowing free 

to the orbiter. Normal operations included IVA activity (other than in

maintenance) planned before launch and listed in the mission timeline su

unpacking, assembly, and powering up. Off-nominal operations included p

mance of backup, malfunction, contingency, or emergency procedure

involving hardware modification or repair. IVA also included all activit

which crew members dressed in spacesuits and using life support system

formed hands-on operations inside a customer-supplied crew module.74

73 Shuttle Crew Operations Manual, p. 2.11-2. 74 “Mission Preparation and Prelaunch Operations,” NSTS Shuttle Reference Manual (1988)

science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsover-prep.html#stsover-crewserv (accessed N

12, 2005).
Figure 3–23. Astronaut F. Story Musgrave is seen anchored on the end of the Remo

Manipulator System Arm as he prepares to be elevated to the top of the Hubble Space Tel

to install protective covers on the magnetometers, December 9, 1993. 

(NASA Photo No. GPN-2000-001085)

In-flight maintenance was any abnormal on-orbit maintenance or repa

malfunctioning payload conducted by the crew within a pressurized ves

payload module to keep the payload operable or to return it to operabili

flight maintenance normally involved removal of payload panels, matin

demating of electrical connectors, or replacement of line replaceable units

Space Shuttle Abort Modes 

Space Shuttle launch abort philosophy is aimed toward safe and 

recovery of the flight crew, orbiter, and its payload. A Shuttle launch sc

75 Space Shuttle Systems Payload Accommodations, NSTS 07700, Volume XIV, Appendix 9. 

Description and Design Data–Intravehicular Activities,” pp. 1-1, 1-2, http://shuttlepayloads.jsc.n

data/PayloadDocs/documents/07700/App_09.pdf (accessed November 15, 2005).
abort might occur up to solid rocket booster ignition. Normally, launch 

before SSME start were followed by an orderly safing procedure and 

egress, assisted by the closeout crew. A fully fueled Shuttle on the launc

might present an extremely hazardous situation if toxic vapors, fire, or stru

damage were present. A launch abort after SSME start was automa

controlled by the ground launch sequencer. The presence of excess hydroge

the most serious hazard, resulting in a very dangerous hydrogen fire invis

the eye. This situation occurred during a launch attempt for STS-41-D in 1

Should an abnormal event occur that terminated a flight or prel

operation and resulted in substantial damage to the Shuttle and/or inju

personnel, the NASA Test Director would declare a contingency situation

would alert fire and rescue personnel and put in motion preplanned proce

to minimize further damage and injuries. The NASA Test Director migh

initiate action if an emergency condition existed that required immediate 

to prevent loss of life or destruction of equipment. In preparation for a po

emergency condition, a hazardous condition might be declared if there 

threat to personnel health or safety. A hazardous condition might develo

an emergency condition.

There were two basic types of ascent abort modes: intact and conting

Intact aborts were designed to provide a safe return of the orbiter to a pl

landing site. Contingency aborts were designed to permit crew su

following more severe failures when an intact abort was not possib

contingency abort would usually result in a crew bailout. 

• Abort-To-Orbit (ATO)—This mode would be chosen if partial lo

main engine thrust occurred late enough to permit reaching a mi

105-nautical-mile (194.5-kilometer) orbit with orbital maneuv

system engines.

• Abort-Once-Around (AOA)—This mode would be chosen when 

was earlier main engine shutdown with the capability to allow one 

around Earth before landing at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif

White Sands Space Harbor (Northrup Strip), New Mexico; or the S

Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

• Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL)—This mode would be selected 

the loss of two main engines midway through powered flight would f

landing at Ben Guerir, Morocco; Moron, Spain; or Banjul, The Gamb

• Return-To-Launch-Site (RTLS)—This mode would be selected 

there was early shutdown of one or more engines, and when there w

enough energy to reach Ben Guerir. It would result in a pitch aroun

thrust back toward Kennedy Space Center until the Shuttle was w

gliding distance of the Shuttle Landing Facility.77

76 E-mail from Kyle Herring, NASA Public Affairs Office, Johnson Space Center, November 30, 2

77 Shuttle Crew Operations Manual, pp. 6.1-1–6.1-2, 6.2-1.
Since Space Shuttle flights began through 1998, there have been ver

aborts. The first on-pad abort-after-ignition occurred on STS-41-D in 

STS-51-F experienced both an on-pad abort and an abort-to-orbit durin

launch attempts in July 1985. STS-55 experienced an on-pad abort

ignition on March 22, 1993, when SSME No. 3 failed to ignite completely

Space Shuttle Missions

Between 1989 and 1998, 66 Space Shuttle missions flew. The foll

section describes those missions, presented chronologically. Table 3–5

summary data. Tables 3–52 through 3–116 list Shuttle mission characte

and events. Most mission information was obtained from online S

chronologies and archives.79 Additional material comes from the press k

each mission, U.S. Human Spaceflight (NASA Monographs in Aero

History No. 9), and specific pages from the National Space Science Data C

(NSSDC) Master Catalog.80 Other sources are noted in footnotes benea

text. Abbreviations relating to crew positions are: CDR–Commander; 

Pilot; MC–Mission Commander, MS–Mission Specialist, PC–Pa

Commander, and PS–Payload Specialist. 

The online Shuttle mission archives generally presented Shuttle altitu

a single value. However, mission descriptions indicated that altitude 

changed during a mission, sometimes for days at a time, to accomplish m

objectives. Unless the change in altitude was especially significant, on

single value presented in the mission archive is noted in the mission table

reader can find additional details relating to mission payloads in chapte

this volume, Space Science, and in the next volume of the NASA Hist

Data Book. Missions shown as “successful” mission were those in 

mission objectives were achieved.

STS-29

This mission launched on March 13, 1989, from Kennedy Space C

and landed March 19 at Edwards Air Force Base. The primary payloa

the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite-4 (TDRS-4) attached to an In

Upper Stage (IUS), which became the third TDRS deployed. 

deployment, the IUS propelled the satellite to geosynchronous orbi

Table 3–52 for further details. 

78 Jenkins, pp. 272, 274, 304, 305. 79 “Mission Chronologies,” http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/chron/chrontoc.htm (accessed M

2005); “1999–2004 Shuttle Mission Archives,” http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleope

archives/1999-2004.html (accessed May–June 2005). 80 Judy A. Rumerman, compiler, U.S. Human Spaceflight: A Record of Achievement, 196

Monographs in Aerospace History, no. 9 (Washington, DC: NASA History Division, July 1998); 

“Space Shuttle Press Kits,” http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/shuttle_pk/shuttle_press.htm 

(accessed May–June 2005); NSSDC Master Catalog, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/sc-query.html

(accessed June–December 2005).
STS-30

This mission launched on May 4, 1989, from Kennedy Space C

and landed May 8 at Edwards Air Force Base. The mission’s pr

payload was the Magellan/Venus Radar Mapper spacecraft with its att

IUS, which boosted the spacecraft on its proper trajectory for a 15-m

journey to Venus. It was the first Shuttle launch of a deep space prob

the first U.S. planetary mission in 11 years. Secondary payloads we

Mesoscale Lightning Experiment (MLE), microgravity research wit

Fluids Experiment Apparatus (FEA), and the AMOS experiment. One 

general purpose computers failed on orbit and had to be replaced. It w

first time such an operation was performed while orbiting. See Table 

for further mission details.

STS-28

This classified DOD mission launched on August 8, 1989, from Ke

Space Center and landed on August 13 at Edwards Air Force Base. See Table 

for further mission details.

STS-34

This mission launched October 18, 1989, from Kennedy Space Cent

landed October 23 at Edwards Air Force Base. The Galileo spacecraf

launched on the Shuttle’s fifth orbit with a boost from its IUS toward Jupi

way of Venus. It was the Shuttle’s second interplanetary payload. 

Also in the payload bay of Atlantis was the Shuttle Solar Backs

Ultraviolet (SSBUV) instrument. The SSBUV provided calibratio

backscatter ultraviolet instruments concurrently being flown on free-

satellites. The SSBUV was contained in two canisters in the payload ba

holding the SSBUV spectrometer and five supporting optical sensors 

second housing data, command, and power systems. An interconnecting 

provided the communication link between the two canisters. Atlantis 

carried several secondary payloads involving radiation measurements, po

morphology, lightning research, microgravity effects on plants, and a s

experiment on ice crystal growth in zero gravity. See Table 3–55 for f

mission details.

STS-33

This classified DOD mission launched November 22, 1989, 

Kennedy Space Center and landed November 27 at Edwards Air 

Base. It was the first night launch since the return to flight. See Table 

for further mission details.
STS-32

This mission launched January 9, 1990, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed January 20 at Edwards Air Force Base. Lasting almost 11 days, S

was the longest Shuttle flight to date.

The Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF), released into orbit on 

41-C in 1984, was finally retrieved after nearly six years in space. LDEF 

14.5-foot by 30-foot (4.4-meter by 9.1-meter) 12-sided array of more th

panels designed to obtain data important to designers of spacecraft o

effects of the orbital environment on metals, coatings, and other material

in constructing spacecraft. It provided an STS-transported, low-cost, reu

free-flying structure to carry many different science and techn

experiments. The LDEF required little or no electric power and data proc

while in long-duration spaceflight.

While in space, the LDEF completed 32,422 Earth orbits, all

investigators to increase their scientific and technological understanding 

space environment and its effects. LDEF experienced one-half of a solar 

as it was deployed during a solar minimum and retrieved at a solar maxi

After rendezvousing with the large, cylindrical satellite—one of the 

complicated space rendezvous operations ever—the Shuttle crew photogr

the LDEF in orbit, grappled it with the remote manipulator system arm

then stowed it in the cargo bay of Columbia. Scientists who examined the 

after landing found evidence of erosion and micrometeorite impac

expected. By the time LDEF was retrieved, its orbit altitude had decay

~175 nautical miles (324 kilometers), and the satellite was a little more tha

month away from reentering Earth’s atmosphere. Figure 3–24 shows the L

A SYNCOM DOD communications satellite also was deployed o

mission. See Table 3–57 for further mission details.

STS-36

This classified DOD mission launched February 28, 1990, from Ke

Space Center and landed March 4 at Edwards Air Force Base. Launc

postponed several times (and then postponed further because of bad we

because of the illness of the mission commander, John Creighton. The m

was the first time since the Apollo 13 mission in 1970 that a human space

mission had been postponed because of the illness of a crew member.

This flight flew at an inclination orbit of 62 degrees, the highest incli

flown by the Shuttle to date. See Table 3–58 for further mission details.
Figure 3–24. The LDEF was retrieved by STS-32 after nearly six years in space.

STS-31

This mission launched April 24, 1990, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed April 29 at Edwards Air Force Base. The Hubble Space Telescop

of the Great Observatories and first large optical telescope to be placed 

Earth’s atmosphere, was released into orbit by the remote manipulator s

arm on the second day of the mission. Because of the need to place the tele

above most of Earth’s atmosphere, Discovery flew the highest Shuttle o

date, reaching an altitude of slightly more than 611 kilometers (330 na

miles). After the telescope was deployed, the astronauts conducted experi

in crystal growth and monitored the radiation environment aboard the o

See Table 3–59 for further mission details.

STS-41

This mission launched October 6, 1990, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed October 10 at Edwards Air Force Base. It was the heaviest paylo

date. The deployment of ESA’s Ulysses to explore the polar regions of th

was the highlight of this four-day mission. Ulysses was released 

Discovery’s cargo bay on the first day of the mission; on-board rockets 

fired to send the spacecraft toward a gravity-assist at Jupiter to observe the 

regions of the Sun. For the first time, a PAM and IUS combined together 

used to send the spacecraft into its trajectory. They replaced the can

Centaur upper stage that had been planned for this mission. After Uly

deployment, the astronauts conducted a number of secondary experim
including measuring atmospheric ozone, studying the effects of atomic o

on spacecraft materials, and evaluating a new “hands-off” voice com

system in the Shuttle crew cabin.

Also in Discovery’s payload bay was the Airborne Electrical Su

Equipment, an electrical generating system mounted on the side of the b

supply power to Ulysses. The INTELSAT Solar Array Coupon, samples o

array materials mounted on Discovery’s remote manipulator system, studi

effects of atomic oxygen wear on solar panels in preparation for a future S

mission to rescue the stranded INTELSAT satellite. See Table 3–60 for f

mission details.

STS-38

This classified DOD mission launched November 15, 1990, and l

November 20, 1990, at Kennedy Space Center. See Table 3–61 for f

mission details.

STS-35

This mission launched December 2, 1990, from Kennedy Space C

and landed December 10 at Edwards Air Force Base. This mission w

first Shuttle flight dedicated to a single discipline: astrophysics. 

Spacelab pallets with the instrument pointing system and igloo, Disc

carried a group of astronomical telescopes called Astro-1 in its cargo bay

crew included four individuals with doctorates in astronomy: J

Hoffman, Robert Parker, Samuel Durrance, and Ronald Parise. D

several hardware malfunctions, the crew observed a wide varie

astronomical targets, from comets to quasars, with particular attention to 

and ultraviolet wavelengths. See Table 3–62 for further mission details.

STS-37

This mission launched April 5, 1991, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed April 11 at Edwards Air Force Base. The initial landing at Edward

waved off and rescheduled for the next day at Kennedy. That, too, was w

off because of fog, and the mission landed one orbit later at Edwards. 

The Gamma Ray Observatory, the second “Great Observatory,” 

released by the Shuttle’s remote manipulator system arm on the third day 

flight, after astronauts Jerry Ross and Jay Apt made an unscheduled spac

to repair an antenna on the spacecraft. The Gamma Ray Observatory w

heaviest science satellite ever launched from the Shuttle (see Figure 3–25)

Later in the mission, Ross and Apt returned to the cargo bay to test 

and Equipment Translation Aids, rail-mounted mechanical pushcarts pl

for use on Space Station Freedom. The two spacewalks were the first in 

than five years. See Table 3–63 for further mission details.
STS-39

This mission launched April 28 and landed May 6, 1991, at Kennedy 

Center. This was the first unclassified defense-related mission of the Shuttl

gram. Highlighted by around-the-clock observations, it included experi

sponsored by the U.S. Air Force and the Strategic Defense Initiative Organiz

The studies included extensive infrared, ultraviolet, visible, and x-ray observ

of the space environment and the Shuttle itself. On-board instrument

returned high-quality images of Earth’s aurora. In an experiment related to ba

missile defense, Discovery released a Shuttle Pallet Satellite (SPAS) instr

platform equipped with infrared sensors to fly in formation and observe 

thruster plumes while the Shuttle performed a complicated series of mane

The satellite was retrieved and returned to Earth at the end of the missio

Table 3–64 for further mission details.

Figure 3–25. The Gamma Ray Observatory, the second “Great Observatory,” was the 

massive instrument ever launched by the Space Shuttle to date.

STS-40

This mission launched on June 5, 1991, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed June 14 at Edwards Air Force Base. The SLS-1 mission was th

mission dedicated entirely to understanding the physiological effec

spaceflight. The crew conducted an extensive series of biomedical experi

during the nine-day mission, and the results were compared with baselin
collected on the ground before and after the flight. In addition to the h

subjects, rodents and jellyfish were aboard to test their adaptati

microgravity. See Table 3–65 for further mission details.

STS-43

This mission launched August 2, 1991, and landed August 11, 19

Kennedy Space Center. It marked the first scheduled landing at Kenn

Shuttle Landing Facility since January 1986. The primary payload, the TD

attached to an IUS, was deployed about 6 hours into flight. The IUS pro

the satellite into geosynchronous orbit as TDRS-5 became the fourth mem

the orbiting TDRS cluster. See Table 3–66 for further mission details.

STS-48

This mission launched September 12, 1991, from Kennedy Space C

and landed September 18 at Edwards Air Force Base. The UARS was dep

on the third day of the mission. The 14,500-pound (6,577-kilogram) ob

tory conducted the most extensive study to date of the upper atmospher

investigated the stratosphere, mesosphere, and lower thermosphere. See 

3–67 for further mission details.

STS-44

This mission launched November 24, 1991, from Kennedy Space Cent

landed December 1, 1991, at Edwards Air Force Base. The mission was sho

by three days because one of the orbiter’s three inertial measurement units fa

The unclassified DOD payload included the Defense Support Pro

(DSP) early warning satellite and attached IUS, which was deployed on th

day of the mission. On-board payloads focused on contamination experi

and medical research. See Table 3–68 for further mission details.

STS-42

This mission launched January 22, 1992, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed January 30 at Edwards Air Force Base. The primary payload w

International Microgravity Laboratory-1 (IML-1) using the Spacelab long m

The IML-1 mission was the first in a series of international Shuttle 

dedicated to fundamental life and microgravity sciences research. IML-1 s

operations were a cooperative effort between the Discovery’s crew in orb

mission management, scientists, and engineers in a control facility at Ma

Space Flight Center. Though the crew and the ground-based controller

science teams were separated by many miles, they interacted in much the 

way as they would if working side by side. The mission was extended by on

to continue mission work. Figure 3–26 shows STS-42 astronauts in the I

science module.
Figure 3–26. Bondar and Thagard work with experiments in the IML-1 Science Module. T

along with four other NASA astronauts and a second IML-1 payload specialist, spent mo

eight days conducting experiments in Earth orbit. Part of the SAMS is in the center foreg

(NASA-MSFC Photo MSFC-9250420) 
Other payloads included 12 GAS canisters, a number of middeck pay

and two SSIP experiments. See Table 3–69 for further details.

STS-45

This mission launched March 24, 1992, and landed April 2 at Ke

Space Center. It marked the first flight of the ATLAS-1, which was moun

Spacelab pallets in the orbiter’s cargo bay. An international team consist

the United States, France, Germany, Belgium, the United Kin

Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Japan provided 12 instruments perform

investigations in atmospheric chemistry, solar radiation, space plasma ph

and ultraviolet astronomy. The ATLAS-1 was co-manifested with the SS

which provided highly calibrated measurements of ozone to fin

measurements made by other NASA and NOAA satellites. The missio

extended one day to continue investigations. Figure 3–27 shows the pa

configuration. See Table 3–70 for further mission details.

Figure 3–27. ATLAS-1 Payload Configuration.

STS-49

This mission launched May 7, 1992, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed May 16 at Edwards Air Force Base. During a mission tha

extended by two days, the crew successfully captured and redeploye

INTELSAT VI satellite, which had been in an unusable orbit since the 

stage failed to separate from the second stage of its Titan launch vehi
March 1990. Capture of the satellite required three spacewalks an

simultaneous efforts of three spacewalking astronauts as well a

maneuvering skill of the Shuttle commander.

The mission was marked by a number of “firsts.” Four spacewalk

most ever on a single mission, highlighted the first flight of the o

Endeavour. Two of these were the longest in U.S. spaceflight history to 

the first lasting 8 hours, 29 minutes and the second 7 hours, 45 minute

flight also featured the longest spacewalk to date by a female astronau

was the first spaceflight in which three crew members worked outsid

spacecraft at the same time. It also was the first time that astronauts attac

live rocket motor to an orbiting satellite, when they attached a perigee 

motor to the INTELSAT VI satellite, which later boosted it into its p

orbit. This was the first Shuttle mission requiring three astronau

rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft.

The crew also practiced assembly techniques for the planned Space S

Freedom and tested the new drag chute after orbiter nosegear touchdo

Edwards Air Force Base. See Table 3–71 for further details.

STS-50

This mission launched June 25 and landed July 9, 1992, at Kennedy 

Center. It marked the first use of the Extended Duration Orbiter kit, tan

liquid oxygen and hydrogen mounted in the payload bay to extend the en

generating fuel cell’s capacity, allowing mission duration to surpass all pre

U.S. crewed spaceflights to date with the exception of the three Skylab mi

in 1973–1974. The USML-1 made its first flight on this mission. It was th

in a planned series of flights to advance microgravity research efforts in s

disciplines. See Table 3–72 for further mission details.

STS-46

This mission launched July 31 and landed August 8, 1992, at Ke

Space Center. The primary mission objective was the deployment of the 

EURECA and the operation of the NASA-Italian TSS, with Italian astr

Franco Malerba on board the Shuttle. EURECA was the largest sa

produced in Europe. It carried 15 major science experiments, mos

microgravity sciences.81 After a delay and a shorter than planned thruster 

the satellite was successfully boosted to operational orbit.

81 Jenkins, p. 301.
igure 3–28. This Space Shuttle Orbiter Atlantis (STS-46) on-board photo is a close-up v

the TSS-1 deployment. (NASA-MSFC Photo No. MSFC-9410850)

During TSS deployment, the satellite at the end of the tether reac

distance of only 840 feet (256 meters), rather than its planned 12.5 miles 

kilometers) because of a jammed tether line.82 After additional unsucc

attempts to free the tether, the satellite was restowed for return to 

Figure 3–28 shows the TSS viewed from the orbiter Atlantis. See Table 

for further mission details.

F

STS-47

This mission launched September 12 and landed September 20, 19

Kennedy Space Center. It was the first on-time launch since STS-61

1985. Spacelab-J, the first Japanese Spacelab, flew on this flight. The 

included the first African-American woman to fly in space, the first m

couple to fly on the same mission, and the first Japanese person to fly o

Space Shuttle. This mission marked the first operational use of the new 

chute, which was deployed before nosegear touchdown. See Table 3–7

further mission details.

82 Distance of 840 feet (256 meters) of tether deployment was stated in the “STS-46 Mission Chro

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/chron/sts-46.htm (accessed July 6, 2005); The summary 

Investigative Board corroborated that figure, “Report Details Causes of Tethered Satellite Malfun

NASA News Release 92-196, November 6, 1992, http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/space/text/tss-sum

(accessed December 4, 2005); Jenkins, p. 301, and the “STS-46 Mission Archives” at 

science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-46/mission-sts-46.html (accessed December 4, 2005), st

distance as 860 feet (262 meters).
STS-52

This mission launched October 22 and landed November 1, 199

Kennedy Space Center. It deployed the Laser Geodynamic Satell

(LAGEOS), a joint effort of NASA and the Italian Space Agency. 

dense 0.6-meter (2-foot)-diameter sphere was covered by retroflect

allow study of dynamic motions of Earth’s crust using precise laser tra

of the satellite from ground stations around the world. LAGEOS I

deployed on flight day two and boosted into an initial elliptical orbit b

IRIS, flying for the first time. The apogee kick motor later fired to adju

spacecraft’s orbit at an operational altitude of 5,616 kilometers by 

kilometers (3,490 miles by 3,669 miles).83

The mission also carried USMP-1, which was activated on the first d

the flight. On-board studies focused on the influence of gravity on basic 

and solidification processes. See Table 3–75 for further mission details.

STS-53

This mission launched December 2, 1992, from Kennedy Space C

and landed December 9 at Edwards Air Force Base. It was the first fli

Discovery after its OMDP. This was the last Shuttle flight for the 

Discovery deployed a classified payload followed by unclassified 

activities. GAS hardware located in the cargo bay or on the mi

contained or were attached to 10 secondary payloads. See Table 3–7

further mission details.

STS-54

This mission launched January 13 and landed January 19, 199

Kennedy Space Center. The fifth TDRS-6, part of NASA’s or

communications system, was deployed about 6 hours after liftoff. Figu

29 shows the on-orbit configuration. 

On the fifth day of the flight, astronauts Mario Runco and Gr

Harbaugh spent almost 5 hours working in the open payload bay, perform

series of EVA tasks to increase NASA’s knowledge of working in space

astronauts tested their abilities to move freely in the cargo bay, climb int

restraints without using their hands, and simulated carrying large object

microgravity environment. 

A Hitchhiker experiment, the Diffuse X-ray Spectrometer, col

data on x-ray radiation from stars and galactic gases. See Table 3–7

further mission details.

83 E-mail from Carey Noll; data provided by LAGEOS science contact Peter Dunn, November 25, 
STS-56

This mission launched April 9, 1993, and landed April 17, 199

Kennedy Space Center. The primary payload was the second ATLAS

Spacelab pallet mission that was one element of NASA’s Mission to 

Earth program. The pallet in the payload bay held six instruments, and a se

was mounted in two GAS canisters.

Figure 3–29. TDRS-F (6) On-Orbit Configuration.

The crew used the remote manipulator system arm to deplo

SPARTAN-201 on the second day of the mission. SPARTAN was a free-

science instrument platform that studied the velocity and acceleration of 

wind and observed the Sun’s corona. The collected data was stored on ta

playback after return to Earth. SPARTAN was retrieved on April 13 .

Using the SAREX, the crew also contacted schools around the worl

briefly contacted the Russian Mir space station, the first contact betwee

Shuttle and Mir using amateur radio equipment. See Table 3–77 for f

mission details.

STS-55

This mission launched April 26, 1993, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed May 6 at Edwards Air Force Base. This was the last launch sche

from Pad 39-A at Kennedy Space Center until February 1994 to allow fo
refurbishment and modification. Figure 3-30 shows the STS-55 launc

May 4, the ninth day of the mission, ground control lost all communi

with Columbia for about 90 minutes because Mission Control issu

incorrect command.84

Figure 3–30. Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-55) blasts off from Pad 39-A at Kennedy S

Center. This was the last launch from this pad until the next year to allow for pad refurbis

and modification. (NASA-KSC Photo No. KSC-93PC-0626)

STS-55 was the second German Spacelab mission using the long m

designated D-2. Two crews worked in around-the-clock shifts and cond

approximately 88 experiments relating to materials and life sciences, tec

ogy applications, Earth observations, astronomy, and atmospheric physic

orbiter Columbia, the oldest fleet member, passed its 100th day in space o

mission. See Table 3–79 for further mission details.

84 Jenkins, p. 304.
STS-57

This mission launched June 21 and landed July 1, 1993, at Ke

Space Center. It was the first flight of the commercially developed SP

HAB, a laboratory designed to more than double the pressurized work

for crew-tended experiments. 

SPACEHAB’s Space Research Laboratory was situated in the fo

quarter of the cargo bay. The pressurized laboratory measured approxim

10 feet (3 meters) long and 13.5 feet (4.1 meters) in diameter and con

more than 1,100 cubic feet (31.1 cubic meters) of working volume, enou

house as many as 61 middeck lockers for experiments or a combinati

middeck lockers and Space Station racks. Crew members used the mo

Spacelab tunnel adapter between the crew compartment and the SPACE

laboratory to gain access to the lab once on orbit. 

The Space Research Laboratory contained all of the subsystems req

to support experiment operations, including environmental controls, com

and data handling, electrical power, and thermal control. On this fligh

SPACEHAB laboratory carried payloads from NASA, the U.S. comm

sector, and ESA. The crew operated a total of 22 individual experiments d

the mission. Included on the flight were 13 commercial space experime

materials processing and the effect of spaceflight on human biotechnolog

sponsored by the NASA CCDS and one by NASA Langley Research C

Also on board the SPACEHAB module was an investigation sponsored b

NASA Space Station Freedom Office on closed systems to improve 

recycling in the future Space Station environment. 

Rendezvous and retrieval of the more than 9,000-pound (4,082-kilo

EURECA-1 scientific satellite took place on flight day four. (See Figure 

for the EURECA mission scenario.) On flight day five, astronauts David 

and Peter Wisoff spent part of a 5-hour, 55-minute EVA manually stowin

antennae, which would not respond to ground commands. The satellit

been deployed on the STS-46 mission in 1992. The crew spent the rema

of the EVA using the robot arm to complete activities associated with 

handling, mass fine alignment, and high torque. During the mission, the 

also spoke with President William J. Clinton. See Table 3–80 for f

mission details.

STS-51

This mission launched on September 12 and landed on September 22, 

at Kennedy Space Center. The ACTS was deployed on this mission

attached Transfer Orbit Stage booster was used for the first time to prop

communications technology spacecraft to geosynchronous transfer orbit. 
Figure 3–31. EURECA Mission Scenario. EURECA was deployed on STS-46, transfer

operational orbit, and was retrieved on the STS-57 Mission and brought back to Ear

The second primary payload, the ORFEUS-SPAS, first in a ser

ASTRO-SPAS astronomical missions, was also deployed. The joint Ger

U.S. astrophysics payload was controlled from the SPAS Payload Oper

Control Center at Kennedy Space Center, the first time a Shuttle payloa

managed from Florida. An IMAX camera mounted on SPAS rec

extensive footage of the orbiter for the first time. The crew also use

IMAX handheld camera to take out-the-window shots of the SPAS opera

After six days spent collecting data, the remote manipulator system 

retrieved the satellite and returned it to the orbiter payload bay. Figure 

shows the position of the ORFEUS-SPAS and ACTS/TOS payloads 

orbiter. Figure 3–33 shows the ORFEUS-SPAS configuration.

Mission specialists James Newman and Carl Walz also perform

spacewalk that lasted 7 hours, 5 minutes, 28 seconds. Last in a ser

generic spacewalks begun earlier in the year, the spacewalk’s objective w

evaluate tools, tethers, and foot restraint platforms for the upcoming H

Space Telescope servicing mission. The findings reassured the designer

planners of the mission that their preparations were sound. See Table 3–

further mission details.
Figure 3–32. ORFEUS-SPAS and ACTS/TOS in the Bay of Discovery on STS-51.

Figure 3–33. ORFEUS-SPAS Configuration.
STS-58

This mission launched October 18, 1993, from Kennedy Space Cent

landed November 1 at Edwards Air Force Base. This was the longest S

flight to date. 

STS-58 was the second dedicated Spacelab Life Sciences mission and th

ond use of the extended duration orbiter. The crew conducted 14-neurovest

cardiovascular, cardiopulmonary, metabolic, and musculoskeletal medical e

ments. Eight of the experiments centered on the crew, and another six focu

48 rodents carried on board. With the completion of her fourth spaceflight, 

naut Shannon Lucid accumulated the most flight time for a female astronaut 

Shuttle, 838 hours. See Table 2–82 for further mission details.

STS-61

This mission launched December 2 and landed December 13, 19

Kennedy Space Center. This was the first Hubble Space Telescope ser

mission, one of the most challenging and complex human spaceflight mi

ever attempted. During a record five back-to-back spacewalks totaling 35 

28 minutes, two teams of astronauts completed the first servicing of the H

Space Telescope, updating instruments, correcting the spherical aber

clouding the telescope’s vision, and replacing faulty gyroscopes. Bo

handheld and cargo bay IMAX cameras captured coverage of the E

Footage from the cameras was used in the 2001 movie Destiny in Spac

Table 3–83 for further mission details.

STS-60

This mission launched February 3 and landed February 11, 199

Kennedy Space Center. The first Shuttle flight of 1994 marked the first fli

a Russian cosmonaut, Sergei Krikalev, on the U.S. Space Shuttle—part 

Implementing Agreement on NASA/Russian Space Agency Cooperat

HSF, an international agreement between the two countries on h

spaceflight. The mission also was the second flight of the SPACE

pressurized module and carried the 100th GAS payload to fly in space. S

flew four GAS experiments as well as three other payloads on the GAS B

Discovery also carried the WSF, an attempt to grow innovative semico

tor film materials for use in advanced electronics while in the near vacu

space. The 12-foot (3.7-meter)-diameter parabolic-shaped WSF inclu

communications and avionics system, solar cells and batteries, and a prop

thruster. It was to be deployed by the remote manipulator arm and fly in f

tion with Discovery at a distance of up to 46 statute miles (74 kilometers) 

the orbiter for 56 hours. The remote manipulator arm was supposed to re

the WSF from space. However, after two unsuccessful attempts to deplo
facility, it was decided that for the remainder of the mission, all WSF oper

would take place at the end of the remote manipulator system and there 

be no WSF free-flying operations. See Table 3–84 for further mission deta

STS-62

This mission launched March 4 and landed March 18, 1994, at Ke

Space Center. The primary payloads were the USMP-2 and the OAST-2 su

experiments. USMP-2 included five experiments investigating material

cessing and crystal growth in microgravity. OAST’s six experiments focus

space technology and spaceflight. Both payloads were located in the pa

bay, activated by crew members, and operated by teams on the ground.

The USMP-2 experiments were conducted early in the mission. Later, to 

itate the OAST-2 experiments, Columbia’s orbit was lowered about 20 na

miles (37 kilometers). The crew also conducted a number of biomedical act

aimed at better understanding and countering the effects of prolonged space

See Table 3–85 for further mission details.

STS-59

This mission launched April 9, 1994, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed April 20 at Edwards Air Force Base. The SRL-1 was this mis

primary payload. It gathered data on Earth and the effect of humans o

planet’s carbon, water, and energy cycles. SRL-1 was located in the Sh

payload bay, activated by crew members, and operated by teams on the gr

SRL-1 included an atmospheric instrument called the Measurement o

Pollution from Satellites (MAPS), the Spaceborne Imaging Radar-C (SI

and the X-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (X-SAR). Figure 3–34 show

location of the X-SAR panels and the SIR-C-band and L-band panels o

payload bay pallet. The German Space Agency and the Italian Space A

provided the X-SAR. More than 400 sites were imaged, including 19 pr

observation sites (supersites) in Brazil, Michigan, North Carolina, and C

Europe. The total area covered was 25.6 million square miles (~50 m

square kilometers).85 Thirteen countries were represented in the project w

principal investigators and more than 100 scientists, coordinated by t

Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Roughly 65 hours of data were collected.

MAPS experiment measured the global distribution of carbon monoxide 

troposphere, or lower atmosphere. 

85 “SIR-C/X-SAR Flight 1 Statistics,” JPL Fact Sheet, http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/sir-c/getti

missions_stats.html (accessed December 7, 2005). Also e-mails from Bruce Chapman, JPL, December 7

86 “SIR-C/X-SAR Flight 1 Statistics,” JPL Fact Sheet.
Figure 3–34. The SIR and X-SAR located on a Spacelab pallet in the Shuttle’s 

payload bay on STS-59.

This was the first flight test of an improved thermal protection tile. K

as Toughened Uni-Piece Fibrous Insulation (TUFI), the new tile material w

advanced version of the material protecting the Space Shuttle from the in

heat that built up as it reentered Earth’s atmosphere. On this mission, si

located on the triangular carrier panel between and below two of the 

engines sustained no damage.87 Figure 3–35 shows the location of the v

payloads on Endeavour. See Table 3–86 for further mission details.

Figure 3–35. Payloads on Endeavour (STS-59). 

87 “STS-59 Shuttle Mission Report,” June 1994, NSTS-08291, NASA-TM-110527, p. 25

ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19950016676_1995116676.pdf (accessed July 7, 200
STS-65

This mission launched July 8 and landed July 23, 1994, at Kennedy 

Center. This was Columbia’s last mission before its scheduled modificatio

refurbishment. The first female Japanese astronaut, Chiaki Naito-Mukai, fl

this mission. She set a record for the longest flight by a female astronaut

flight also marked the first time that liftoff and reentry were captured on vide

from the crew cabin. The flight was the longest to date, lasting 14 days, 18 h

The IML-2 was the primary payload. The IML-2 carried more than 

the number of experiments and facilities as the first IML mission. More th

experiments, representing more than 200 scientists from six space age

were located in the IML Spacelab module in the payload bay. Two tea

crew members performed round-the-clock research on the behavior of ma

and life in near weightlessness. 

Fifty of the experiments related to life sciences, including bioproce

space biology, human physiology, and radiation biology. Some of the equi

used for these investigations had flown on previous Spacelab flights, such as 

Biorack, making its third flight. The IML-2 Biorack housed 19 experiments f

ing chemicals and biological samples such as bacteria; mammalian and h

cells; isolated tissues and eggs; sea urchin larvae; fruit flies; and plant seedli

DARA provided the Slow Rotating Centrifuge Microscope (NIZEM

slow-rotating centrifuge that allowed study of how organisms react to dif

gravity levels. Samples studied included jellyfish and plants. For the first 

researchers could determine how organisms reacted to forces one and on

times Earth’s gravity. 

Nearly 30 experiments in materials processing were conducted with 

different types of science facilities. DARA provided the Electroma

Containerless Processing Facility (TEMPUS), flying for the first time on 

2, to allow study of the solidification of materials from the liquid stat

containerless environment. Solidification phenomena were of great inter

science and also used in many industrial processes. Science teams detect

the first time a phase in a nickel-niobium sample that was masked by 

forces on Earth. 

Another facility, the ESA’s APCF, was flying for the second time. H

in two middeck lockers, the APCF operated autonomously after being act

on the first flight day. Some 5,000 video images were made of crystals 

during flight.

The mission further advanced the concept of telescience, 

researchers on the ground could monitor in real time experiments on boa

orbiter. The flight set a new record of more than 25,000 payload comm

issued from Spacelab Mission Operations Control at Huntsville, Ala

Figure 3–36 shows the layout of the IML-2 module racks. See Table 3–

further mission details.
Figure 3–36. IML-2 Module Racks.
STS-64

This mission launched September 9, 1994, from Kennedy Space Cent

landed September 20 at Edwards Air Force Base. STS-64 marked the first 

of the LIDAR LITE, which used laser optical radar for the first time to pe

atmospheric research as part of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth program

LITE operated for 53 hours and yielded more than 43 hours of high-rate 

Sixty-five groups from 20 countries made validation measurements 

ground-based and aircraft instruments to verify LITE data. During the mi

the crew also released and retrieved the SPARTAN-201 satellite usin

remote manipulator system arm. See Table 3–88 for further mission detail

STS-68

This mission launched September 30, 1994, from Kennedy Space C

and landed October 11 at Edwards Air Force Base. The mission set an

duration record, lasting more than 16.5 days. The SRL-2, part of NA

Mission to Planet Earth, flew for the second time in the same year. It ga

data on Earth and the effect of humans on the planet’s carbon, water, and e

cycles. Flying the laboratory in different seasons allowed investigato

compare observations between the two flights, which took place in mid

and at the end of September. The mission also tested the ability of SR

imaging radar to distinguish between changes caused by human-in

phenomena, such as oil spills, and naturally occurring events. The m

demonstrated the maneuvering capability of the orbiter as the crew pilot

Endeavour to within 30 feet (9.1 meters) of where it had flown during th

SRL mission on STS-59. The total area covered on this mission was 32 m

square miles (roughly 83 million square kilometers).88

Five GAS payloads were among the other cargo bay payloads. 

included two canisters from the U.S. Postal Service that held 50

commemorative stamps honoring the 25th anniversary of Apollo 11. See 

3–89 for further mission details.

STS-66

This mission launched November 3, 1994, from Kennedy Space Cent

landed November 14 at Edwards Air Force Base. The landing was diver

Edwards Air Force Base because of Tropical Storm Gordon, which prev

landing in Florida. 

ATLAS-3, the third ATLAS flight, sat on a Spacelab pallet in the S

cargo bay and collected data about the Sun’s energy output, the che

makeup of Earth’s middle atmosphere, and how these factors affected 

88 “SIR-C/X Flight 2 Statistics,” http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/sir-c/getting_data/missions_st

(accessed December 7, 2005).
ozone levels. The second primary payload, the CRISTA-SPAS, was releas

the second day of the mission and retrieved with the Shuttle’s r

manipulator system arm. This payload continued the joint NASA-G

Space Agency series of scientific missions. CRISTA-SPAS flew at a dista

about 25 miles to 44 miles (40 kilometers to 70 kilometers) behind the S

and collected data for more than eight days before being retrieved and ret

to the cargo bay. See Table 3–90 for further mission details.

STS-63

This mission launched February 3 and landed February 11, 199

Kennedy Space Center. On this flight, Eileen Collins became the first fem

serve as a Shuttle pilot. 

STS-63 had special importance as a precursor and dress rehearsal for the S

missions that would rendezvous and dock with the Russian space station Mir

flying to and “stationkeeping” at 400 feet (122 meters) from Mir, Dis

approached to 37 feet (11 meters) before backing off to 400 feet (122 meter

performing a fly-around. The six-person Shuttle crew included Vladimir 

the second Russian cosmonaut to fly on the Space Shuttle. (Figure 3-37 sho

Mir space station as seen from Discovery.) Crew members Bernard Harris, J

C. Michael Foale performed a spacewalk away from the payload bay t

spacesuit modifications intended to keep spacewalkers warmer and to demon

large-object handling techniques. The mass-handling part of the EVA 

curtailed when the astronauts became very cold. Harris became the first Af

American to walk in space.

The mission also deployed SPARTAN-204, a free-flying spacecraft that 

astronomical observations in the far ultraviolet spectrum (see Figure 3–38). 

The SPACEHAB module flew for the third time with an arr

technological, biological, and other scientific experiments. SPACE

introduced two new system features to reduce the demands on crew time

first was a video switch allowing one camcorder to transmit images 

ground at the same time another unit collected a digital image on a 

frame and sent it down independently of other orbiter video dow

operations. The second, an enhanced experiment data interface wit

SPACEHAB telemetry system, allowed an experimenter with a sta

RS232 computer interface to tie directly into the system and send conti

information down to the ground, off-loading this task from the crew 

enhancing ground controller monitoring of experiment status. 

SPACEHAB laboratory on this mission had two 12-inch (30.5-centim

diameter windows with a NASA docking camera to assist in Mir prox

operations. See Table 3–91 for further mission details.
Figure 3–37. Russia's Mir Space Station during rendezvous operations with the Space S

Discovery. Docked at the bottom of the Mir facility is a Soyuz vehicle. On STS-63, Disc

approached Mir, flew around the Russian Space Station, and then backed off. This pro

practice for future docking missions. (NASA Photo STS063-712-017)

STS-67

This mission launched March 2, 1995, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed March 18 at Edwards Air Force Base. The mission set a duration r

of more than 16.5 days. 

Astro-2 was the second mission using the Spacelab instrument po

system and igloo/pallet to conduct astronomical observations and 

scientific data on astronomical objects in the ultraviolet regions of the spec

The Spacelab’s three telescopes made observations in complementary re

of the spectrum and gathered data that would add to scientists’ understand

the universe’s history and the origins of stars. Figure 3–39 shows the A

suite of instruments.
Figure 3–38. SPARTAN-204 was a free-flying spacecraft that observed the far ultrav

spectrum. Weighing some 2,500 pounds (1,134 kilograms), it was to give the astrona

practice handling heavy loads in the cold, nighttime space environment in preparatio

Space Station assembly. But both astronauts reported they were becoming very cold, an

mass handling part of the mission was curtailed

STS-67 was the first advertised Shuttle mission connected to the In

Users of more than 200,000 computers from 59 countries logged on 

Astro-2 home page at Marshall Space Flight Center. More than 2.4 m

requests were recorded during the mission, many answered by the crew in

See Table 3–92 for further mission details.

STS-71

This mission launched June 27 and landed July 7, 1995, at Kennedy 

Center. This flight marked the 100th U.S. human spaceflight and was the f

a series of Shuttle flights that docked with the Russian space station Mir. 

docking on flight day three, Mir and Atlantis remained joined for five day

seven-person Shuttle crew included two Russian cosmonauts who remain

Mir after Atlantis returned to Earth. Two other cosmonauts and the 
astronaut Norman Thagard, who had flown to Mir aboard the Russian 

spacecraft in March 1995, returned to Earth on Atlantis after more tha

days in space. To ease their return to gravity, the three lay on their bac

specially designed seats installed in the orbiter’s middeck. The returning cr

eight equaled the largest crew to fly on the Shuttle. The mission demons

the successful operation of the Russian-designed docking system, whic

based on concepts used during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975. See 

3–93 for further mission details.

Figure 3–39. Astro-2 Suite of Instruments.

STS-70

This mission launched July 13 and landed July 22, 1995, from Ke

Space Center. The TDRS-7 deployment marked completion of NASA’s T

system, which provided communication, tracking, telemetry, data acqui

and command services to the Shuttle and other low orbital spacecraft mi

from geosynchronous orbit. STS-70 also marked the first flight of the 

Block I Space Shuttle Main Engine. The engine featured a new high-pre

liquid oxygen turbopump, two-duct powerhead, baffleless main injector, s

coil heat exchanger, and start sequence modifications that increased its sta

and safety. See Table 3–94 for further mission details.
STS-69

This mission launched September 7 and landed September 18, 19

Kennedy Space Center. The Shuttle deployed the WSF-2, which, 

separately from the Shuttle, produced an “ultravacuum” in its wake and al

experimentation in the production of advanced, thin film semicond

materials. The WSF-2, deployed on flight day five, became the first spac

to maneuver itself away from the orbiter (rather than the other way aroun

firing a small cold gas nitrogen thruster to move away from Endeavour.

The SPARTAN 201-03 also was deployed and retrieved. The SPART

primary objective was to study the outer atmosphere of the Sun and its tran

into the solar wind that constantly flows past Earth. The timing o

SPARTAN flight was intended to coincide with the passage of the U

spacecraft over the Sun’s north polar region to expand the range of data 

collected about the origins of the solar wind.

During the spacewalk on this mission, which lasted 6 hours, 46 mi

astronauts James Voss and Michael Gernhardt evaluated the thermal im

ments made to their EVA suits and reported that they remained comfortable

also tested a variety of tools and techniques perhaps necessary for ISS asse

The spacewalk was the 30th EVA of the Shuttle program.

STS-69 also was the second flight of a “dog crew,” a flight crew tra

that began on STS-53, on which both Walker and Voss flew. As Dog Cr

each STS-69 astronaut adopted a dogtag or nickname: Walker was Red 

Cockrell was Cujo; Voss, Dog Face; Newman, Pluto; and Gernhardt, 

Dog. See Table 3–95 for further mission details.

STS-73

This mission launched October 20 and landed November 5, 199

Kennedy Space Center. USML-2, the second United States Microg

Laboratory, was the primary payload. Some of the experiments resulted 

the outcome of investigations on USML-1, which flew aboard Columb

STS-50. The research during USML-2 concentrated on the same overall 

as USML-1, and many experiments flew for the second time. Researc

conducted in five areas: fluid physics, materials science, biotechn

combustion science, and commercial space processing. Two teams of 

members worked around-the-clock in the 23-foot (7-meter) Spacelab m

located in Columbia’s payload bay.

The crew took time out from Spacelab work to tape the ceremonia

pitch for Game 5 of the Major League Baseball World Series, marking th

time the thrower was not actually in the ballpark for the pitch. This w

second longest Shuttle flight to date. See Table 3–96 for further mission d
STS-74

This mission launched November 12 and landed November 20, 19

Kennedy Space Center. It was the second in a series of dockings with Mi

mission marked the first time that astronauts from ESA, Canada, Russia, a

United States were in space on the same complex at one time.

Unlike the first docking flight during which a crew exchange took plac

second docking focused on delivery of equipment to Mir. The primary pa

of the mission was the Russian-built Docking Module (DM), design

become a permanent extension on Mir to afford better clearances for Sh

Mir linkups. Two solar arrays were stowed on the DM for later transfer t

by spacewalking cosmonauts. See Table 3–97 for further mission details.

STS-72

This mission launched January 11 and landed January 20, 1996, at Ke

Space Center. The crew of STS-72 captured and returned to Earth a Jap

microgravity research spacecraft, the Space Flyer Unit, which had 

launched by Japan in March 1995. The mission also deployed and retriev

OAST-Flyer spacecraft, the seventh in a series of missions aboard reu

free-flying SPARTAN carriers. The flight also included two spacewalks 

hardware and tools to be used during ISS assembly. See Table 3–98 for f

mission details.

STS-75

The mission launched February 22 and landed March 9, 1996, at Ke

Space Center. The mission was the 50th Shuttle flight since NASA’s ret

flight following the Challenger accident and the 75th Shuttle flight. The m

was a reflight of the TSS (see STS-46). The tether broke three days in

mission, just short of its full deployment length, resulting in the loss 

Italian satellite.

The other primary Shuttle payload was USMP-3, the third United 

Microgravity Payload. The payload included U.S. and interna

experiments, all of which had flown at least once before. See Table 3–

further mission details.

STS-76

This mission launched March 22, 1996, from Kennedy Space Cente

landed March 31 at Edwards Air Force Base. The mission, Shuttle-Mir M

3, featured the third docking of the Space Shuttle Atlantis and the Russian 

station Mir. Docking occurred between the ODS in the forward area 

Atlantis payload bay and the DM installed during STS-74 on Mir’s K

module docking port. The mission included a spacewalk, logistics opera
and scientific research. About 1,500 pounds (680 kilograms) of water an

tons of scientific equipment, logistical material, and resupply items 

transferred from Atlantis to Mir, including a gyrodyne, transformer, bat

food, water, film, and clothing. Experiment samples and miscella

equipment were brought to Atlantis from Mir. Astronaut Shannon Luci

second U.S. astronaut and the first U.S. woman to live on the Russian 

station, began what turned out to be a marathon stay on Mir of four and on

months, eclipsing the previous record set by Norman Thagard.

STS-76 marked the first flight of a SPACEHAB pressurized mod

support Shuttle-Mir dockings. The single module served primarily as sto

area for a large supply of equipment slated for transfer to the Space Stat

also carried ESA’s Biorack experiment rack for on-orbit research.

This mission experienced an unusual anomaly on the orbiter’s ride back 

Edwards Air Force Base to Kennedy Space Center after the Shuttle flig

warning light for an engine on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft 747 indicated an e

fire. The plane returned to Edwards Air Force Base, and the engine was rep

before the journey recommenced. See Table 3–100 for further mission detai

STS-77

This mission launched May 19 and landed May 29, 1996, at Ke

Space Center. This was the first flight that used three Block I main engine

the first Shuttle mission controlled from the new Mission Control Cen

Johnson Space Center. The new facility replaced the Apollo-era comple

had been used for previous Shuttle missions.

The mission was highlighted by four rendezvous activities with 

different payloads: deployment and retrieval of the Passive Aerodynam

Stabilized Magnetically Damped Satellite (PAMS), one of four Techn

Experiments for Advancing Missions in Space (TEAMS), and of the SPAR

207/Inflatable Antenna Experiment (IAE) satellite. During its 90-m

mission, the IAE tested the performance of a large inflatable antenna, layi

groundwork for future technology development on inflatable space struc

At the end of the mission, the crew jettisoned the antenna structure and s

the spacecraft. 

The six-person Endeavour crew also performed microgravity res

aboard the SPACEHAB module. The single module carried almost 

pounds (1,361 kilograms) of experiments and support equipment for 12 

mercial space product development payloads in the areas of biotechn

electronic materials, polymers, and agriculture. One of the additiona

loads, the Commercial Float Zone Facility, was an international collabo

between the United States, Canada, and Germany. See Table 3–101 for f

mission details.
STS-78

This mission launched June 20 and landed July 7, 1996, at Kennedy 

Center. Five space agencies (NASA, ESA, the French Space Agency—C

the CSA, and the Italian Space Agency) and research scientists from 10 

tries worked together on the LMS Spacelab, which built on previous S

Spacelab flights dedicated to life sciences and microgravity investiga

More than 40 experiments were flown and grouped into the areas of lif

ences, which included the following: human physiology and space bio

microgravity science (including basic fluid physics investigations and adv

semiconductor and metal alloy materials processing); and medical resea

protein crystal growth. The investigations focused on the effects of long

tion spaceflight on human physiology, and crew members conducted the 

of experiments that would fly on the ISS. LMS investigations were cond

via the most extensive telescience to date. Investigators were located a

remote European and four remote U.S. locations, similar to what would h

with the ISS. The mission also made extensive use of video imaging to 

crew members perform in-flight maintenance procedures on experiment 

ware. This was the longest Shuttle flight flown, lasting almost 17 day

Table 3–102 for further mission details.

STS-79

This mission launched September 16 and landed September 26, 19

Kennedy Space Center. On this mission, astronaut Shannon Lucid s

world’s women’s and U.S. records for length of time in space: 188 days 

hours. The mission was the fourth Shuttle docking with the Mir space s

and the first exchange of U.S. crew aboard a Russian spacecraft. Lucid ret

to Earth on Atlantis, and astronaut John Blaha replaced her on Mir for a pl

four-month stay.

The mission also marked the second flight of the SPACEHAB mod

support of Shuttle-Mir activities and the first flight of the SPACEHAB d

module configuration. During five days of mated operations, the two 

transferred more than 4,000 pounds (1,814 kilograms) of supplies to 

including logistics, food, and water generated by orbiter fuel cells. 

experiments also were transferred: Biotechnology System (BTS) for stu

cartilage development; Material in Devices as Superconductors (MIDA

measure electrical properties of high-temperature superconductor material

CGBA, which contained several smaller experiments including self-con

aquatic systems. About 2,000 pounds (907 kilograms) of experiment sa

and equipment were transferred from Mir to Atlantis. The total log

transfer to and from Mir of more than 6,000 pounds (2,722 kilograms) w

most extensive to date. See Table 3–103 for further mission details.
STS-80

This mission launched November 19 and landed December 7, 1996, a

nedy Space Center. This was the third flight of the WSF, which had flow

STS-60 and STS-69. It was the second flight of the German-built ORF

SPAS-2. Both the WSF and ORFEUS-SPAS were deployed and retrieve

ing the mission, making it the first time that two satellites were flying fre

the same time. ORFEUS-SPAS II was the third flight to use the German

ASTRO-SPAS science satellite. The 1-meter (3.1-foot)-diameter ORF

Telescope with the Far Ultraviolet (FUV) Spectrograph and the Extreme 

violet (EUV) Spectrograph comprised the main payload attached t

ASTRO-SPAS framework. The Interstellar Medium Absorption Profile 

trograph (IMAPS) was a separate instrument, IMAPS operated indepen

of the ORFEUS telescope. Another science payload was the Surface E

Sample Monitor (SESAM), a passive carrier for state-of-the-art optical su

and potential future detector materials. The SESAM investigated the imp

the space environment on materials and surfaces in different phases of a 

Shuttle mission, from launch to orbit phase to reentry into Earth’s atmosph

Two planned 6-hour EVAs were canceled because of a jammed outer a

hatch. This flight again broke the record for the longest Shuttle flight, l

slightly more than 17.5 days. See Table 3–104 for further mission details.

STS-81

This mission launched January 12 and landed January 22, 1997, at Ke

Space Center. STS-81 was the fifth of nine planned missions to Mir and the s

involving an exchange of U.S. astronauts. Astronaut Jerry Linenger re

astronaut John Blaha aboard Mir after Blaha spent 118 days on Mir and 128 d

space. Atlantis carried the SPACEHAB double module, which provided add

middeck locker space for experiments. While the vehicles were docked, 

transferred nearly 6,000 pounds (2,722 kilograms) of logistics to Mir, inc

approximately 1,600 pounds (726 kilograms) of water, 1,138 pounds 

kilograms) of U.S. science equipment, and 2,206 pounds (1,000 kilogram

Russian logistical equipment. About 2,400 pounds (1,089 kilograms) of ma

returned from Mir to Earth on Atlantis. See Table 3–105 for further mission d

STS-82

This mission launched February 11 and landed February 21, 1997, at 

nedy Space Center. It was the second in a series of planned servicing missi

the Hubble Space Telescope. The orbiter’s robot arm captured the Hubble 

Telescope so it could be serviced, and two teams of astronauts performe

spacewalks. The crew took more than 150 crew aids and tools on the mi

ranging from a simple bag for carrying some of the smaller tools to sophist

battery-operated power tools. See Table 3–106 for further mission details.
STS-83

This mission launched April 4 and landed April 8, 1997, at Kennedy 

Center. This mission lasted only 4 days and returned to Earth 12 days 

because of a problem with one of the fuel cells that provided electricit

water to the orbiter. The MSL-1 was rescheduled for STS-94. See Table 

for further mission details.

STS-84

This mission launched May 15 and landed May 24, 1997, at Ke

Space Center. This was the sixth docking with the Mir space station an

third involving an exchange of U.S. astronauts. Astronaut J. Michael 

replaced astronaut Jerry Linenger, who had been in space 132 days

mission resupplied materials for experiments to be performed aboard M

returned experiment samples and data to Earth. Altogether nearly 249 

were moved between the two spacecraft, with nearly 1,000 pounds 

kilograms) of water moved to Mir, for a total of nearly 7,500 pounds (

kilograms) of water, experiment samples, supplies, and hardware. See 

3–108 for further mission details.

STS-94

This mission launched July 1 and landed July 17, 1997, at Kennedy 

Center. It was the reflight of MSL-1, which had flown on STS-83. The m

involved the same vehicle, crew, and experiment activities as planned on th

lier MSL-1 mission. The crew maintained 24-hour/two-shift operations. 

the Spacelab module as a testbed, the MSL-1 tested some of the hardware

ities, and procedures that would be used on the ISS. The 33 investigation

yielded new knowledge in the fields of combustion, biotechnology, and m

als processing. Scientists from NASA, ESA, the German Space Agency, a

National Space Development Agency of Japan contributed the 25 pr

experiments, 4 glovebox investigations, and 4 accelerometer studies on M

A record number of commands—more than 35,000—were sent from 

Spacelab Mission Operations Control Center at Marshall Space Flight Cen

the MSL-1. See Table 3–109 for further mission details.

STS-85

This mission launched August 7 and landed August 19, 1997, at Ke

Space Center. The CRISTA-SPAS-2 was the primary payload. It was dep

and, after more than 200 hours of free flight, was retrieved using Disco

robot arm. (See Figure 3–40 for a drawing of the SPAS-2.) CRISTA-SPAS-

the fourth in a series of cooperative ventures between the German Space A

and NASA. This was the satellite’s second flight. The satellite consisted of 
telescopes and four spectrometers. The three CRISTA telescopes collected 3

atmospheric profiles of the middle atmosphere. Two other instruments mo

on the SPAS also studied Earth’s atmosphere. The MAHRSI obtained 

vertical profile data on the distribution of hydroxyl (OH) and nitric oxide 

mesosphere and upper stratosphere conditions under very different 

seasonal and diurnal) from its previous flight on STS-66. The SESAM c

state-of-the-art optical surfaces to study the impact of the atomic oxyge

space environment on materials and services. Twenty-two sounding rocke

40 balloons were launched to provide correlating data. 

Figure 3–40. The SPAS-2 was a German-built, reusable free-flying vehicle that could 

deployed and retrieved by the Space Shuttle’s Remote Manipulator System. The origina

was used on STS-7 with materials processing and defense-related sensor payloads. The S

was used on ORFEUS-SPAS and CRISTA-SPAS missions.

The Technology Applications and Science experiments, Manipulator 

Demonstration supplied by Japan, and international Extreme Ultra

Hitchhiker were other mission payloads. The crew also worked with the O

Space Vision System (OSVS), which would be used during ISS assembl

OSVS featured a series of dots strategically placed on various payloa

vehicle structures that permitted precise alignment and pointing capabilit

Table 3–110 for further mission details.
STS-86

This mission launched September 25 and landed October 6, 199

Kennedy Space Center. It was the seventh docking between Atlantis and th

space station and the fourth exchange of U.S. astronauts. U.S. astron

Michael Foale returned to Earth aboard Atlantis after a stay of 134 days o

and 145 days in space. His stay on Mir was the second longest spacefli

U.S. history behind Shannon Lucid’s 188-day flight in 1996. Foale was rep

by David Wolf.

The first joint U.S.-Russian EVA during a Shuttle flight took place o

mission. During a 5-hour, 1-minute spacewalk on October 1, Vladimir Tito

Scott Parazynski affixed a 121-pound (55-kilogram) Solar Array Cap 

docking module for future use by Mir crew members to seal off the susp

leak in Spektr’s hull.89 Parazynski and Titov also retrieved four MEEPs fro

outside of Mir and tested several components of the SAFER jet packs.

Atlantis carried the SPACEHAB double module to support the trans

logistics and supplies to Mir and the return of experiment hardwar

specimens to Earth (see Figure 3–41). More than 4 tons (3,628 kilogram

materials were transferred between SPACEHAB and Mir, incl

approximately 1,700 pounds (771 kilograms) of water; experiment har

for ISS Risk Mitigation Experiments to monitor the Mir for crew healt

safety; a gyrodone; batteries; three pressurization units with breathing a

attitude control computer; and many other items. See Table 3–111 for f

mission details.

STS-87

This mission launched November 19 and landed December 5, 19

Kennedy Space Center. It was the first time since 1992 that eight Shuttle f

were conducted in one year. The mission carried the USMP-4 an

SPARTAN 201-04 satellite as the primary payloads. It included experi

that studied how the weightless environment of space affected various ph

processes. During this mission, payload specialist Leonid Kadenyuk becam

first Ukrainian to fly aboard the Space Shuttle. Six minutes into the cli

orbit, Columbia’s computers commanded the orbiter to roll from an in

position under its fuel tank to a “heads-up” position to provide 

communications access to the TDRS system. That enabled NASA to pha

the Bermuda tracking station to save costs to the Shuttle program. 

89 The accident that caused the leak is described later in this chapter.
Figure 3–41. The SPACEHAB double module is lifted into the payload changeout roo

Launch Pad 39-A for insertion into the payload bay of Atlantis. On STS-86, about 3-1/

(3,175 kilograms) of science and logistical equipment and supplies were exchanged be

Atlantis and Mir. (NASA Photo No. KSC-97PC-1340)
An unexpected event occurred when the attitude control system aboa

free-flying SPARTAN solar research satellite malfunctioned, causin

satellite to rotate outside the Shuttle. After unsuccessful attempts to captu

satellite using the orbiter’s mechanical arm, crew members perform

unscheduled spacewalk lasting 7 hours, 43 minutes, successfully recapturi

satellite and lowering it onto its berth in the payload bay manually. The an

prevented all planned research on SPARTAN from being performed. A s

spacewalk lasting 7 hours, 33 minutes tested a crane to be used for constr

the ISS and a free-flying camera to monitor conditions outside the S

without requiring EVAs. See Table 3–112 for further mission details.

STS-89

This mission launched January 22 and landed January 31, 1998, at Ke

Space Center. The eighth Mir-Shuttle linkup and the fifth crew exchange 

place. Astronaut David Wolf, who had been on Mir since September 199

had spent 128 days in space, was replaced by astronaut Andrew Thom

addition to using the SPACEHAB Logistics Double Module to supply Mi

more than 8,000 pounds (3,629 kilograms) of scientific equipment, log

hardware, and water, the mission recovered the Optical Properties Monito

Mir. This important experiment exposed material samples composed mo

optical instruments and coatings to space conditions. See Table 3–11

further mission details.

STS-90

This mission launched April 17 and landed May 3, 1998, at Kennedy 

Center. This was the 23rd and final Spacelab module flight, which had sp

the prior 15 years. The key science focused on Neurolab, a set of investig

relating to the effects of microgravity on the nervous system. The experi

studied vestibular system adaptation and space adaptation syndrome, adap

of the central nervous system and the pathways that control the ability to 

location and orientation in the absence of gravity, and the effect of microg

on a developing nervous system (Figure 3–42).

The mission was a joint venture of six space agencies and seven 

research agencies. Investigator teams from nine countries conducted 31 s

in the microgravity environment of space. The agencies participating i

mission included six institutes of the National Institutes of Health, the Na

Science Foundation, and the Office of Naval Research, as well as the 

agencies of Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the ESA. See Table 3–1

further mission details.
Figure 3–42. This Electronic Still Camera (ESC) image shows Dafydd R. “Dave” Will

Mission Specialist, working with the Virtual Environment Generator (VEG), in the Neuro

board Columbia, on April 20, 1998. The VEG was used to discover how the balance be

visual and vestibular cues shifts toward the visual system in weightlessness. The VEG 

head-mounted display that showed computer-generated virtual reality scenes generate

three-dimensional graphics computer. (NASA Photo No. STS90-E-5041) 

STS-91

This mission launched June 2 and landed June 12, 1998, at Kennedy 

Center. It was the ninth and last Mir docking mission. It was the first do

mission for Discovery. Astronaut Andrew Thomas returned to Earth 

completing 130 days of living and working on Mir. No U.S. astronau

delivered to Mir. Thomas’ transfer ended a total of 907 days spent by seve

astronauts aboard the Russian space station as long-duration crew membe

Discovery carried the single SPACEHAB module in its payload bay

module housed experiments performed by the astronauts and served as a 

carrier for the items transferred to Mir and returned to Earth.90 During the d

phase of STS-91, astronauts and cosmonauts transferred more than 1,100 p

(500 kilograms) of water, and almost 4,700 pounds (2,132 kilograms) of 

experiments and supplies were exchanged between the two spacecraft.

90 Mir remained in orbit until March 23, 2001, when it returned to Earth after 86,331 total orbits

Mir’s modules were still pressurized at the time of deorbit and burst into flame as fragments fell 

South Pacific Ocean as ground controllers had planned. (Roger D. Launius, Space Stations, Base C

the Stars (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2003), pp. 172–173. Between the final Shu

docking and June 2000, the station remained crewed by Russian cosmonauts. In January 2001, a P

cargo vehicle was launched in preparation for its March docking and deorbit of Mir. “Mir Chro

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mir_chronology.html (accessed November 29, 2005). Also “Mi

Station Observing,” http://satobs.org/mir.html (accessed November 29, 2005).
STS-91 also carried into space the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (

Investigation. The objectives of this investigation were to search for anti-m

and dark matter in space and to study astrophysics.

The mission was the first use of the super lightweight external 

(SLWT). This new tank was the same size, 154 feet long and 27 f

diameter, (47 meters by 8.2 meters) as the external tank used on pre

Shuttle launches but 7,500 pounds (3,401 kilograms) lighter. It was made 

aluminum lithium alloy, and the structural design had been improved, m

the SWLT 30 percent stronger and 5 percent less dense. The walls 

redesigned hydrogen tank were machined in an orthogonal, waffle-like p

providing more strength and stability than the previous design. 

improvements made additional payload capacity available to the ISS. See 

3–115 for further mission details.

STS-95

This mission launched October 29 and landed November 7, 199

Kennedy Space Center. The mission conducted a variety of science experi

in the pressurized SPACEHAB module, deployed and retrieved the SPAR

free-flyer payload, and carried out operations with the Hubble Space Tele

Orbiting Systems Test (HOST) and the IEH payloads in the payload bay

mission was dubbed “the John Glenn Mission” because of its famous 

member. The scientific research mission returned space pioneer John Gl

orbit 36 years, 8 months, and 9 days after he became the first American to 

Earth. A battery of tests on Glenn and Pedro Duque furthered research o

the absence of gravity affected balance, perception, immune system resp

bone and muscle density, metabolism and blood flow, and sleep.

The HOST provided a unique opportunity to test key pieces of new H

Space Telescope hardware before installation on future servicing mission

flying the Shuttle in an orbit similar to Hubble Space Telescope’s, the H

allowed engineers to determine how the new equipment would perform 

telescope. HOST engineers monitored the effects of radiation on Hubble 

Telescope’s new hardware, including an advanced computer, digital 

recorder, and cryogenic cooling system. All the new technologies on the H

mission performed as expected.

The SPARTAN spacecraft investigated physical conditions and proces

the hot outer layers of the Sun’s atmosphere, or solar corona. While dep

from the Shuttle, SPARTAN gathered measurements of the solar coron

solar wind. This was a reflight of the SPARTAN payload flown on STS-8

had developed problems soon after deployment from the Shuttle. See Ta

116 for further mission details.
STS-88

This mission, the last in the 1989–1998 decade, launched December 

landed December 15, 1998, at Kennedy Space Center. This mission mark

start of ISS assembly when the U.S. module Unity mated with the R

Zarya module that had been launched by a Proton rocket on Novembe

Astronauts Jerry Ross and James Newman conducted three spacewalks to 

cables, connectors, and hand rails. The two modules were powered up aft

astronauts’ entry.

Ross and Newman met other EVA objectives as they tested a SAFER 

self-rescue device to aid a spacewalker who becomes separated from 

spacecraft during an EVA. They also nudged two undeployed antennas on 

into position; removed launch restraint pins on Unity’s four hatchway

mating future additions of Station modules and truss structures; insta

sunshade over Unity’s two data relay boxes to protect them from harsh sun

stowed a tool bag on Unity and disconnected umbilicals used for the m

procedure with Zarya; installed a handrail on Zarya; and made a de

photographic survey of the Station. 

Astronauts completed assembly of an early S-band communications s

that allowed flight controllers in Houston to send commands to Unity’s sy

and keep tabs on the health of the Station, and conducted a successful test 

videoconferencing capability of the early communications system that th

permanent crew would use. Astronauts Sergei Krikalev and Nancy Curri

replaced a faulty unit in Zarya. 

A new spacewalk record was established as Ross completed his se

walk, totaling 44 hours, 9 minutes. Newman moved into third place wit

EVAs totaling 28 hours, 27 minutes. See Table 3–117 for further mission d

Space Station

Overview92

The Space Station is the largest and most complex international sci

project in history. Space Station development began in 1984 with Pre

Ronald Reagan’s call to create a permanent human presence in space. C

Freedom in its early planning stages, Alpha in 1993, and finally the 

assembly began in 1998 with the launch of the first two components, the 

and Zarya modules. Led by the United States, the ISS has drawn upo

scientific and technological resources of 16 nations: Canada, Japan, Russ

ESA member nations, and Brazil. The United States is responsib

91 “Zayra” means “sunrise.” See the section describing Space Station development later in this cha

more details of this mission.

92 Most material in the overview came from “The International Space Station: An Overview,” NAS

IS-1999-06-ISS022, June 1999, http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/issovw.pdf (a

June 28, 2005).
developing and ultimately operating the major elements and systems aboa

Station. Beginning in 1993, Russia has been a prime partner in Space S

development, contributing both Space Station elements and knowledge gl

from years of long-duration spaceflight.

The completed ISS, as configured in 1999, will have a mass of ab

million pounds (453,592 kilograms), more than four times as large 

Russian Mir space station. It will measure about 360 feet (110 meters) 

and 290 feet long (88 meters), with almost an acre of solar panels to pr

electrical power to six laboratories. The first two ISS modules, the Ru

launched Zarya control module and the U.S.-launched Unity conn

module, were assembled in orbit in late 1998. This orbiting two-m

complex had a mass of more than 74,000 pounds (33,566 kilograms

measured 76 feet long (23 meters) with a 78-foot (23.8-meter) wingspan 

solar arrays. The Station’s internal pressurized volume was 4,635 cubi

(131.2 cubic meters). By early 1999, about 500,000 pounds (22

kilograms) of Station components had been built at factories around the w

The ISS orbits at an altitude of 250 statute miles (402 kilometers) w

inclination of 51.6 degrees. This orbit allows launch vehicles of a

international partners to reach the Station, providing the capability to d

crews and supplies. The orbit also allows excellent Earth observations 

coverage of 85 percent of the globe and overflight of 95 percent of the popu

The program was organized into three phases since it became the ISS

first phase of the ISS, the Shuttle-Mir program, began in 1995 and inv

more than two years of continuous stays by U.S. astronauts on Mir and 

Shuttle-Mir docking missions. Seven U.S. astronauts spent a cumulative to

32 months aboard Mir with 28 months of continuous occupancy since M

1996. By contrast, it took the U.S. Space Shuttle fleet more than 12 years a

flights to achieve an accumulated one year in orbit.

The knowledge and experience NASA gained through the Shuttl

program could not have been achieved in any other way. NASA acq

valuable skills in international crew training activities; operatin

international space program; and meeting the challenges of long-du

spaceflight for astronauts and ground controllers. Dealing with the rea

challenges encountered during Shuttle-Mir missions also resulte

unprecedented cooperation and trust between members of the U.S. and R

space programs that has enhanced ISS development.

Many of the research programs planned for the ISS benefit from longer 

in space. It is envisioned that research in the Station’s six laboratories will l

discoveries in medicine, materials, and fundamental science that will b

people around the world. Through its research and technology, the ISS als

serve as an indispensable step in preparing for future human space explorati

See Table 3–131 for a chronology of Space Station development.
ISS Partners

A worldwide team consisting of the United States, Canada, ESA, 

Russia, Italy, and Brazil is providing components for the ISS.

The United States, through NASA, is the initiator, integrator, and lea

the ISS effort. The United States is contributing the truss structures maki

the Station’s framework; four pairs of large solar arrays; three conn

modules, or nodes, with ports for spacecraft and for passage to othe

elements; a cupola; an unpressurized logistics carrier; and an a

accommodating U.S. and Russian spacesuits. NASA is also furn

laboratory, habitation, and centrifuge accommodation modules. 

NASA’s integrated services include thermal control; power; environm

control and life support; communications, tracking, and data handling ser

guidance, navigation, and control; and crew health maintenance as w

ground operations and launch site processing facilities.

Canada’s CSA is providing the Mobile Servicing System, a 55-foot 

meter), 125-ton (113,398-kilogram)-capacity robotic arm called the 

Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), as well as a 12-foot 

meter) Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) arm. The 

Servicing System will aid in ISS assembly and maintenance. Canada wi

supply the Space Vision System, a Shuttle-tested advanced camera to 

astronauts in viewing the SSRMS.

The European Space Agency comprises Belgium, Denmark, F

Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, a

United Kingdom. The ESA is providing the Columbus Orbital Facility 

launched on the Ariane 5 expendable launch vehicle and the Auto

Transfer Vehicle. The ESA was cooperating on development of the X-38 

Return Vehicle (canceled in 2002).

The Columbus Orbital Facility will carry 10 refrigerator-size rack

holding experiments, half of them European research projects. The Auto

Transfer Vehicle will be used for logistics and propellant resupply as well 

reboost of the ISS.

Japan’s National Space Development Agency is providing the Jap

Experiment Module. This experiment module houses the pressurized m

Exposed Facility, a remote manipulator system, and an Experiment Lo

Module. The pressurized module comprises a laboratory to accommod

racks for holding experiments. The Exposed Facility is an external platfor

up to 10 unpressurized experiments in the vacuum of space.

The 32-foot (9.8-meter) remote manipulator system will be use

servicing the Exposed Facility system and for changing payloads

Experiment Logistic Module will be used for pressurized and unpress

logistics resupply missions.
The Russian Space Agency is supplying about one-third the mass of the 

the form of a service module, Universal Docking Module, Science 

Platform, Docking Compartment, and research modules. The service m

provides early living quarters for ISS crews, while the Universal Docking M

provides docking for both Russian and U.S. space vehicles. The Russian 

Agency provides crew transfers on the Soyuz and logistics resupply, S

reboosting, and orientation adjustments with its Progress and other ve

Russia built the first ISS element launched into orbit, the U.S.-funded Zarya

Italy is participating as part of the ESA as well as independently pro

three Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules through the ASI. The modules w

used on the Shuttle to carry pressurized cargo and payloads to the ISS

structural design of the modules forms the basis for the design of the 

Columbus Orbital Facility. The agency also will supply Nodes 2 and 3 to NA

The Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE) in San Jos

Campos, Brazil, will provide six items under the direction of the Brazilian 

Agency, Agencia Espacial Brasileira (AEB). These constitute attachment d

and a pallet on which experiments and equipment will ride in Shuttle missi

the ISS. Brazil’s Technology Experiment Facility will provide long-term 

exposure for selected experiments, while Window Observation Research F

2 will be devoted to observation and remote sensing development.

Background

In January 1984, in his State of the Union address, President R

Reagan called for NASA “to develop a permanently manned space statio

to do it within a decade.”93 From that day on, NASA committed to build

Space Station, then with a 1994 completion date on the calendar. The A

created the necessary organizational structure and began work on the ba

concept. NASA stated in April 1988 that “the Space Station is essential 

United States is to maintain preeminence in key areas of civil space act

during the 1990s and beyond.”94 By the end of 1988, President Ronald R

had named the orbiting structure Freedom; and NASA had forme

international partnership with nine European nations; Canada; and soon J

as well as their respective space agencies; the ESA; the CSA; and Ja

NASDA. These alliances pledged cooperation during the detailed d

development, and operation and utilization phases of the Space Station pro

and agreed to provide the components of this modular orbiting laboratory. 

93 “State of the Union Message, January 25, 1984,” Public Papers of the Presidents of the United 

Ronald Reagan, 1984 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986), pp. 87–95. 94 Office of Space Station, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Space Station 

Development Plan, Fiscal Year 1989,” Submitted to the Committee on Science, Space and Tech

U.S. House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S

April 1988, p. 1.
At the same time, NASA chose its prime contractor team of B

Aerospace, McDonnell Douglas, General Electric, and the Rocketdyne Di

of Rockwell International for the implementation and execution p

hardware development, and advanced design. NASA awarded four 10

contracts with a total value of approximately $6.7 billion to correspond 

four “work packages” centered at four NASA Centers: Marshall Space 

Center, Johnson Space Center, Goddard Space Flight Center, and 

Research Center. The Station was considered a facility that would “

evolution in keeping with the needs of Station users and the long-term go

the United States.”95

Since 1987, the Station had been planned for completion in two p

Phase I, known as the “revised baseline configuration,” included a single 

zontal boom, U.S. laboratory and habitat modules, accommodation for att

payloads, U.S. and European polar platforms, 75 kilowatts of photov

power, European and Japanese laboratory modules, the Canadian Mobil

vicing System, and provisions for evolution. An earlier structural configur

consisting of a dual keel with additional accommodations for attached pay

had been moved to Phase II, known as the “enhanced configuration.” Und

1987 plan, the dual keel would be added only when support requirements 

attached payloads exceeded the capacity of the original solar panel truss. N

had changed from the earlier single-phase, dual-keel plan to two phases be

planners doubted that the Space Shuttle could schedule enough flights w

the available time to deliver the truss elements needed for a dual keel.96 Ph

also included an additional 50 kilowatts of power from the solar dynami

tem, the satellite servicing facility, and the U.S. co-orbiting laboratory sate

NASA also decided to give the Station a “man-tended” status in Phase 

upgrade to “permanent habitability” after Phase I was complete.98 Phase 

initially planned for sometime after the 20th assembly flight in early 1998

never received funds and was postponed indefinitely. Table 3–118 show

Phase I and II contractors, tasks, and contract values.

Space Station Freedom

Space Station Freedom development did not proceed smoothly. Con

balked at the rising cost, which by 1987 had grown by more than 80 perc

$14.5 billion in FY 1984 dollars.99 NASA also slipped the goal of a perma

95 “Fact Sheet, Presidential Directive on National Space Policy, February 11, 1988,” (actual policy s

was classified), http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/policy88.htm (accessed March 1, 20

96 David M. Harland and John E. Catchpole, Creating the International Space Station (Chiches

Springer-Praxis Books, 2002), p. 118.

97 U.S. General Accounting Office, Space Station: NASA’s Search for Design, Cost, and Schedule 

Continues, GAO/NSIAD-91-125, March 1991, p. 23, http://archives.gao.gov/d21t9/143481.pdf (a

June 1, 2005).

98 Man-tended referred to short-term occupation of the Station while a Shuttle orbiter or Soyuz was 

at the Station. Permanent habitability meant a continuous presence on the Station.

99 Launius, pp. 134–136.
occupied Space Station, as stated by President Ronald Reagan, to 1995 a

assembly completion date from 1994 to early 1997.100 Support by the sc

community also was uneven as some questioned the value of the Statio

scientific research and worried that money spent on Freedom would redu

amount available for other scientific pursuits. Consequently, Space S

Freedom was redesigned several times in an effort to reduce the pric

streamline construction. 

Congress kept tight control over Space Station funding, insistin

NASA request funds annually rather than appropriate funds the project 

use over several years. This forced NASA to repeatedly justify the Sta

cost, causing increased friction between NASA and Congress. In 1988, 

introducing the FY 1990 budget request, NASA Administrator James Fl

stated that the proposed cost was as low as possible and there was no roo

further reductions. Congress still was unwilling to provide adequate fun

and Fletcher resigned on April 8, 1989. Dale Meyers, Fletcher’s d

briefly became Administrator until the President appointed Richard 

later in the year. In June, James Odom, Space Station program head only 

March 1988, retired, and Truly appointed former astronaut William Len

the job. Lenoir was also given the task of working out the consolidation 

Office of Space Station and Office of Space Flight, the organization man

the Space Shuttle.

As of April 1989, Space Station Freedom was planned as a 476-foot 

meter) main truss assembly. Components included:

• A U.S. laboratory module

• A habitation module that would allow a continuous human presence 

• A European attached pressurized module

• A Japanese experiment module

• Four resource nodes

• One standard and one hyperbaric airlock 

• A logistics carrier

• A flight telerobotic servicer

• A Canadian mobile servicing system

• Attached payload accommodations equipment

• A propulsion assembly

The laboratories would provide for extensive science, applications

technology development. There would also be provisions for external att

payloads, and three additional free-flyer spacecraft would be provided.101

100 U.S. General Accounting Office, Space Station: NASA’s Search for Design, Cost, and Schedule 

Continues, GAO/NSIAD-91-125, March 1991, p. 21, http://archive.gao.gov/d21t9/143481.pdf (ac

June 2005).

101 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Space Station, Space Station Freedom 

Development Plan, Fiscal Year 1990, April 1989, pp. 12–27 (NASA History Office Folder 009508
This configuration did not survive. First, in June 1989, NASA 

overhauling the Space Station assembly sequence. It decided to rely only 

current Space Shuttle capabilities for lifting and assembling S

components. The Agency abandoned the possibility of a Shuttle advanced 

rocket motor to increase the Shuttle’s carrying capacity as well a

availability of an orbital maneuvering vehicle or a Shuttle-C vehicle.102 Ph

was postponed indefinitely, and the polar platform transferred from the 

Station program to NASA’s Office of Space Science and Applications for 

Earth observation studies.

Next, in July 1989, NASA formed a Configuration Budget Review 

headed by W. Ray Hook of Langley Research Center. The team estab

three control boards that meticulously reviewed the program to de

preliminary options for ways the program could exist within the severe b

constraints threatened by Congress. The team presented these options to N

Space Station management and the international partners.103

Based on this major program review, NASA announced late in 1

“rephasing” of the program to meet an anticipated budget cut of nearly 

million for FY 1990 and “to reduce technical, schedule, and cost ri

(Congress had in the meantime passed a FY 1990 funding bill in Oc

1989 to fund the Space Station program at $1.8 billion, $250 million les

the administration’s $2.05 billion budget request.) Major pro

modifications included:

• Swapping the hydrogen-oxygen attitude control thrusters for 

conventional hydrazine thrusters requiring little development cost. 

• Eliminating a completely closed-loop environmental system that rec

Freedom’s water and air supply, instead shipping supplies to Fre

from Earth on the Shuttle. 

• Rearranging the module layout to eliminate several interconnecting 

modules. 

• Eliminating two airlocks that would have provided redundancy 

storage space for spacesuits and other EVA equipment and replacing 

with a single airlock with hyperbaric treatment capability for tr

decompression sickness. 

• Eliminating two deployable booms that would have held the prop

system and the communications and tracking antennas and adding two 

bays below the standard truss to hold that equipment, one on each end

102 The orbital maneuvering vehicle was planned as a reusable, remotely controlled free-flying “spa

The Shuttle-C vehicle was a heavy-duty, uncrewed, Shuttle-like hauler of cargo.

103 Harland and Catchpole, p. 122. 104 “NASA Officials Make Some Changes to Space Station Freedom To Reduce Risk,” Station Brea

no. 1 (January 1990) (NASA History Office Folder 009522).
• Reducing the number of attachment fixtures for external payload

utilities.

105

• Scrapping development of new high-pressure spacesuits, leaving the 

with existing suits used for Shuttle EVA.106

These changes kept the first element launch scheduled for March 199

delayed the assembly complete date by 18 months. Figure 3–43 show

proposed configuration for the completed Space Station as of 1991. 

The various modules had been determined early in Freedom’s develop

These remained in place throughout the various modifications that foll

The module cluster consisted of the U.S. laboratory and habitation module

ESA’s attached pressurized module, and the Japanese Experiment Module

The U.S. laboratory module (see Figure 3–44) was a pressurized, 

sleeve laboratory containing racks to house experiments and Free

systems. The racks were a standard size (approximately as large 

refrigerator) to simplify replacement and for commonality with the racks 

other laboratory modules to be delivered later in the assembly. Of the 24 

in the U.S. lab, 15 were allotted to the users to perform research 

development activities. The remaining nine racks were for Freedom’s sy

such as the environmental control system and guidance and navigation sy

The U.S. habitation module (see Figure 3–45) served as living quarte

Freedom’s crew. It provided room for relaxation, personal hygiene

exercise, as well as on-board medical facilities.

The attached pressurized module from the ESA (see Figure 3–46) an

Japanese Experiment Module laboratories (see Figure 3–47) provided 20 a

user racks, respectively, enabling investigations into material properties

dynamics, and the behavior of living organisms in a weightless environ

The attached pressurized module provided a shirt-sleeve environme

astronauts and was equipped with power supply, thermal control, environm

control and life support, and data handling systems. The Japanese Exper

Module also provided a pressurized shirt-sleeve environment for astronau

was equipped with power supply, thermal control, environmental contro

life support, and data handling systems. An external platform, calle

Exposed Facility (see Figure 3–48) would be attached to the rear of the Jap

Experiment Module. This facility provided additional attach ports for ex

payloads. The Japanese Experiment Module’s robotic arm could repla

service payloads on the Exposed Facility.

The SSRMS and the SPDM were Canada’s contribution to Space S

Freedom (see Figure 3–49). The SPDM had two 6-foot (1.8-meter) ro

arms for delicate tasks, such as connecting and disconnecting ut

105 Billie Deason, “Budget-Minded Changes Alter Freedom Plans,” Space News Roundup, NASA 

Space Center (April 27, 1990): 3 (NASA History Office Folder 009523). 106 Robert Zimmerman, Leaving Earth; Space Stations, Rival Superpowers, and the Qu

Interplanetary Travel (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 2003), p. 222.
exchanging orbital replacement units, and assisting in Space Station asse

maintenance, and repair activities. The SSRMS and the SPDM, togethe

the mobile transporter, made up the Mobile Servicing System. This s

had lighting and video capabilities to assist astronauts in remote handlin

visual inspection of payloads.

Figure 3–43. Space Station Freedom Configuration, 1991. (NASA History Office Folder 0

Figure 3–44. U.S. Laboratory Module.
Figure 3–45. U.S. Habitation Module.

Figure 3–46. The ESA Attached Pressurized Module.

NASA and the White House continued to look for ways to reconfigu

Station to cut costs, forming advisory groups and teams to look at alternativ

propose recommendations. In January 1990, NASA formed the Ex

Maintenance Task Team (EMTT) to address concerns about the numb

spacewalks needed to maintain the Station. The team recommended signifi

reducing annual EVA. A complementary team formed in June 1990, the Ex

Maintenance Solutions Team, addressed problems raised by the EMTT and 

further recommendations for reducing EVA maintenance.107

107 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook, 1992, pp.18–19.
In the fall of 1990, the White House formed the Advisory Committee 

Future of the U.S. Space Program, chaired by Norman Augustine, to “

alternative approaches and make recommendations for implementing futur

space goals” and to advise the NASA Administrator on overall approac

implement the U.S. space program. The Committee had 120 days to ma

serious no-holds-barred” review of the space program and recom

improvements.108 The Committee recommended that “steps should be tak

reduce the Station’s size and complexity, permit greater end-to-end testing p

launch, reduce transportation requirements, reduce extra-vehicular assemb

maintenance, and, where it can be done without affecting safety, reduce cost

Committee also recommended revamping the program to emphasize life sc

and human space operations, including microgravity research as appro

Although Congress had given NASA only 90 days to “implement a revised 

station design and assembly sequence,” the Committee stated that this 

prove inadequate and as much time as needed should be taken. The Com

also strongly recommended the immediate availability of a crew rescue veh

Figure 3–47. Japanese Experiment Module.

NASA seriously considered the reviews, recommendations, and dir

from Congress, delivering to Congress in March 1991 a restructuring 

laying out an extensively redesigned Station. It had a $30 billion pric

108 Harland and Catchpole, p. 124. 109 Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program, “Report of the Advisory Comm

the Future of the U.S. Space Program, December 1990,” http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/

augustine/racfup1.htm (accessed March 15, 2005).
(including launches) but was smaller, easier to assemble in orbit, and 

require fewer Shuttle flights to build.110 The number of crew members on 

was reduced from eight to four and the flight telerobotic servicer (FTS

moved from the Space Station program to NASA’s Office of Aerona

Exploration, and Technology. One large solar panel on Freedom was elimi

reducing the panel’s power from 75 kilowatts to 35 kilowatts. Foll

Congress’s instructions for components that could be built in stages, the 

truss was shortened to 353 feet (108 meters) and modified so it could b

integrated and tested with all subsystems before launch, reducing the EVA 

needed to build and maintain the Station. The U.S. laboratory and habi

modules were shortened by 40 percent and also could be built, preassem

and checked out on the ground. Because of the shortened truss, the faciliti

large attached payloads were no longer needed and were canceled, althou

hardpoints on the truss would still be used for small payloads. The cancel

of the FTS and the attached payload accommodation equipment elim

Work Package 3, and NASA terminated its contract with GE Astro.1

schedule was also rephased. The first element launch was moved to early 

Man-tended capability was delayed until mid-1997, when docked Sh

would be able to use Freedom for periods of up to two weeks. Perm

occupation was postponed for three years until 2000.112

This redesign was poorly received by the science community and NA

international partners. The National Research Council’s Space Studies 

stated that the redesign did not “meet the basic research requirements” f

sciences and microgravity research and applications, “the two pri

scientific disciplines for which it is intended.”113 The modifications 

displeased the Station’s international partners both because of the de

deployment of their modules and because they had not been consulted o

changes, a violation of their agreements.

110 Space Station Freedom Media Handbook, 1992, p. 19. Also Marcia S. Smith, Congressional R

Service, testimony to the Science Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, “NASA’s Space 

Program: Evolution and Current Status,” 4 April 2001, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.htm?p

(accessed June 3, 2005); also http://www.house.gov/science/full/apr04/smith.htm (accessed June 7, 

111 “Goddard Announces Contract Termination,” NASA News Release 91-27, February 15, 199

ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1991/91-027.txt (accessed March 22, 2005). The contract for the 

accommodation equipment also included two polar platforms to be used for on-orbit research as pa

EOS. A new contract for these items was drawn up with GE Astro.

112 Peter Bond, The Continuing Story of the International Space Station (London: Springer-Praxis 

2002), p. 114.

113 National Research Council, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications

Studies Board Position on Proposed Redesign of Space Station Freedom,” March 29, 1991 (NASA 

Office Folder 009524).
Figure 3–48. Japanese Experiment Module Exposed Facility.

Figure 3–49. Canada’s SPDM attached to the SSRMS.
Nevertheless, Vice President Dan Quayle and the National Space C

endorsed the report on March 21, 1991. After the House Appropri

Committee recommended cutting off all funding for Freedom and cancel

the Senate, on September 27, 1991, agreed to the House bill and granted N

its full FY 1992 funding request of $2,028,900,000 for Space Station Fre

President George H. W. Bush signed the bill on December 9.114 This v

cancel the program was the first of many that the Station survived. 

In spring of 1992, the NASA Space Station Freedom Office iss

strategic plan for the program.115 The plan presented a “vision of what Fre

will accomplish, as well as its mission, goals, and objectives.” The 

described the three-phase process with a separate “man-tended capability

a “permanently manned capability.” (See Figures 3–50 and 3–51). Durin

man-tended capability period, the crew would remain on-board Freedom 

while the Space Shuttle was docked, returning to Earth with the Shuttle 

each mission. The beginning of the permanently manned capability wou

marked by the addition of the Assisted Crew Return Vehicle, to be 

during 1999. Figure 3–52 shows the progression from Stage 1, first el

launch, through Stage 6, man-tended capability, to Stage 17, perman

manned capability, as envisioned in July 1992. Assembly would 

approximately four years, beginning in the fall of 1995 with the first el

launch, and would require 18 mission build flights during that peri

transport Freedom’s components into orbit.116

Figure 3–50. Man-Tended Capability, 1992.117

114 National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1992, Public L

195, 102nd Congress, 1st sess. (December 9, 1991).

115 NASA Space Station Freedom Strategic Plan 1992, undated. (NASA History Office Folder 1694

116 Space Station Freedom User’s Guide, August 1992, pp. 2-1–2-2. (NASA History Office Folder 0

117 NASA Space Station Freedom Strategic Plan 1992, p. 9.
The Station would orbit from 335 kilometers (208 nautical miles) t

kilometers (285 nautical miles) above Earth at a 28.5-degree inclinatio

orbit around Earth would take approximately 90 minutes. Table 3–11

Space Station Freedom characteristics as of May 1992.

Russian Involvement

While NASA and Congress were embroiled in budget battle

restructuring of the Space Station, the leaders of the Soviet Union and U

States were discussing cooperation in space. Early in July 1991, soon 

dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, Vice President Dan Quayle and Oleg Shi

minister of General Machine Building in the Soviet Union, met to disc

venture in which the United States and Soviet Union could cooperative

Mir for human spaceflight missions.118 On July 31, at a summit meet

Moscow, President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorb

signaled their growing cordiality by signing an agreement for an astron

visit Mir and a cosmonaut to fly on the Space Shuttle. The two also disc

Russia’s desire to enter the commercial space launch market.119 In Dece

Gorbachev resigned after an unsuccessful coup staged by hard-liners an

disintegration of the Soviet Union. Boris Yeltsin became the head of th

Russian Federation. 

Figure 3–51. Permanently Manned Capability, 1992.

Soon after, in February 1992, President George H. W. Bush asked N

Administrator Truly to resign. On April 1, Daniel Goldin assumed NA

helm, inheriting a program that was behind schedule and over cost.120 At ro

the same time, Yeltsin created the civilian Russian Space Agency head

118 Launius, p. 152. 119 John M. Logsdon, “Appendix B: The Evolution of U.S.-Russian Cooperation in Human Space Fl

John M. Logsdon and James R. Millar, eds., U.S.-Russian Cooperation in Human Space Flight: A

the Impacts (Washington, DC: Institute for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies, The 

Washington University, 2001), http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/usrusappb.html (accessed June 3, 2005). 120 W. Henry Lambright, Transforming Government: Dan Goldin and the Remaking of NAS

PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for The Business of Government, March 2001, p. 19.
Yuri Koptev. The two new agency heads met informally in Washington, D

discuss possibilities for cooperation. This meeting was followed by a su

between President George H. W. Bush and Yeltsin on June 17, 1992, in 

the two agreed “to give consideration to” a joint mission. The two leaders s

the “Agreement Between the United States of America and the R

Federation Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer 

for Peaceful Purposes.” The cooperation would include a “Space Shuttl

Mir Space Station mission involving U.S. astronauts and Russian cosmon

The leaders also agreed to a Shuttle flight by Russian cosmonauts in 19

flight on a long-duration mission on Mir by a U.S. astronaut in 1994, 

docking mission between the Shuttle and Mir in 1995.121

Figure 3–52. Space Station Freedom Assembly Stages as Envisioned in July 1992, Show

progression from Stage 1, First Element Launch, through Stage 6, Man-Tended Capabi

Stage 17, Permanently Manned Capability. (Grumman)

On June 18, 1992, Russia and the United States formally signed 

U.S.-Russian Space Cooperation Agreement and ratified the first co

between NASA and the Russian aerospace firm NPO-Energia, a 

independent industrial conglomerate that ran the Mir space station

agreement called for “a rendezvous [and] docking mission between th

and the Space Shuttle in 1994 or 1995”; “detailed technical studies 

121 “How ‘Phase 1’ Started,” Shuttle-Mir Background, http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shu

history/h-b-start.htm (accessed June 3, 2005).
possible use of [Russian] space technology” for U.S. missions, incl

Space Station Freedom; and “steps to encourage private companies to e

their search for new commercial space business.”122 The one-year co

with NPO-Energia, valued at $1 million, was to study applications of Ru

space technology to the Space Station Freedom program. NASA 

expressed interest in the potential use of the Soyuz as a crew rescue v

for Space Station Freedom, of Russia’s automated rendezvous and do

system known as Androgynous Peripheral Docking Assembly being 

with Mir, and of the Mir for long lead-time life sciences experime

support of the Space Station Freedom program.123

On October 5, 1992, NASA and the Russian Space Agency sign

“Implementing Agreement Between the National Aeronautics and 

Administration of the United States of America and the Russian Space A

of the Russian Federation on HSF Cooperation.” This agreement detail

cooperation that had been called for in the June 1992 agreement an

necessary legal and other provisions associated with the cooperation. Parti

included an exchange of cosmonauts and astronauts on each other’s spac

with U.S. astronauts delivered to Mir by Soyuz, spending more than 90 

there, and returning on the Shuttle, Russian cosmonauts on Mir being “ch

out” on the same Shuttle flight that would deliver a U.S. astronaut

evaluation of the Russian Androgynous Peripheral Docking Assembly

joint effort was named “the Shuttle-Mir Program.”124 The United State

proposed expanding the program to include more docking missions betwe

Shuttle and Mir, increasing the presence of U.S. astronauts on Mir 

maximum period of two years, and delivering up to two tons of hardware 

U.S. Space Station on Russian modules. 

Redesign and Space Station Alpha125

In January 1993, William J. Clinton was inaugurated as President. O

his goals was reducing the federal deficit. A NASA assessment early in th

revealed that Freedom was $1 billion over budget.126 The Office of Manag

and Budget warned Goldin that the President planned to cut NASA’s budg

perhaps terminate Space Station Freedom. Goldin argued for the necess

the Station to NASA’s mission and existence.127 President William J. C

reconsidered, and rather than cancel the program, directed NASA to red

the Station and produce a configuration that reduced costs while still prov

meaningful international participation as well as the “essential resour

122 Logsdon and Millar, Appendix B. 123 “NASA Ratifies First Contract with Russian Space Program,” NASA News Release 92-91, June 1

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1992/92-091.txt (accessed June 3, 2005). 124 Logsdon and Millar, Appendix B. 125 Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station, “Final Report to the Pre

June 10, 1993, pp. 1–3, 21–24, 34, 40–41.

126 Smith, Space Stations, 1999, p. CRS-3. 127 Lambright, p. 17.
advance the nation’s scientific and technology development capabilit

space.”128 Consequently, on March 9, 1993, the President formally di

NASA to undertake a “rapid and far-reaching redesign of the Station” w

goal of significantly reducing development, operations, and utilization c

The aim of this redesign was to cut the cost from the planned $14.4 billion 

administration goal of $9 billion and reduce the complexity of the c

design and program while still achieving the goals for long-duration sci

research. The President directed NASA to give him several design option

various costs and capabilities. 

At the request of the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Re

Team was to consider options at three cumulative-cost levels: $5 billion, $

lion, and President William J. Clinton’s ceiling of $9 billion. The cost o

option for fiscal years 1994 through 1998 was to accommodate the interna

partners and cover total expenditures for the Station, including develop

operations, utilization, Shuttle integration, facilities, research operation

transition cost. The Station Redesign Team, led initially by Dr. Joseph She

subsequently by Col. Bryan O’Connor, first met on March 10, 1993. 

approximately three months, the Station Redesign Team developed three op

An advisory committee, chaired by vice presidential appointee and 

president, Dr. Charles Vest, beginning in April 1993, assessed each o

looking at technical and scientific capability, accuracy of projected cost

structure of management and operations. The committee made a numb

observations.129 All three options had a firm requirement for an assured 

return capability—a space “lifeboat” or “parachute.” The advisory com

noted that the United States was not currently developing such a vehicl

that the Russian Soyuz spacecraft was considered a viable contender

committee recommended changing the Station’s inclination to 51.6 degr

allow use of the Soyuz. White House guidelines included considering R

participation and use of Mir, although later clarification from the White H

emphasized that the redesign effort was not to focus on “present or 

Russian capabilities.”130

Redesign Options

Option A was a modular buildup using many Freedom systems. Opt

eliminated the two U.S. nodes, simplifying the pressurized volumes. Ma

the subsystems, including data management, software, electrical p

thermal systems, and pressurized modules, were also simplified. Opt

contained two “sub-options,” one with a Lockheed Bus-1 spacecra

navigation and propulsion, the second without it. The Station would b

128 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, “Space Station Redesign Team Final Repor

Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station,” June 1993, p. 259.

129 The Advisory Committee was also called the Vest Panel. 130 Logsdon and Millar, Appendix B. 
feet (30 meters) shorter than the original design. Permanent human capa

would be achieved in September 2000 after 16 Shuttle flights. The tota

of Option A was $17 billion.

Option B was derived most closely from Space Station Freedom. Exce

minor changes, the phasing of capabilities and subsystems remained the 

Option B offered two advantages: 1) mature hardware, hardware m

designed already with prototypes tested, and 2) the design of the ba

Station had evolved after years of engineering review and iteration wi

research community. Option B used an evolutionary approach. The Opt

Station was larger than the current design and would require 20 Shuttle f

to achieve an international permanent human capability in December 200

a greater number of EVAs. Option B’s total cost was $19.7 billion.

Option C was a single-launch core Station and deviated most fro

original design. All basic systems of this option would be checked out b

launch, and it would be operational as soon the astronauts arrived. It h

largest inhabited volume and number of experiment racks. Because f

Option C’s systems were mounted on the outside of the Station, less 

maintenance was required, and therefore more crew time was availab

research. This option placed a pressured module, derived from Space S

components, in orbit with a single launch. Seven Shuttle flights woul

international modules, and a permanent human capability would begin ea

2001. The total cost was $15.5 billion.

The advisory committee noted that none of the redesign options m

White House goal of completing development by the end of October 

The committee concluded, though, that Option A reached its human-t

configuration by that date. None of the options met the targets of $5 b

$7 billion, or $9 billion. Even so, the proposed options, the comm

believed, would still save from $6 billion to $10 billion when compared 

current anticipated cost of Space Station Freedom while permittin

development of a “very capable station.”131

The advisory committee determined that Options A and C were 

deserving of further consideration.” The international partners howeve

report stated, expressed “strong reservations” about Option C based o

option’s “relative lack of maturity and programmatic uncertainties.” The 

mittee also endorsed the Redesign Team’s recommendation of a single 

contractor responsible for total system integration, including cost, schedul

performance, and the establishment of a single NASA management team 

bining project and program levels into a dedicated program office and lo

this core management team at a host Center.132

131 Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station, “Final Report to the President” (J

1993), p. 40.

132 Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station, “Final Report to the Pr

(June 10, 1993), pp. 1–3, 7, 34, 40.
On June 17, 1993, President William J. Clinton announced his selection 

reduced cost, scaled-down version of the original Space Station Freedom.” 

“Alpha,” this was a hybrid of two options with a $10.5 billion price tag ove

1994–1998 and a total cost of $17.4 billion.133 Alpha had four phases: “1) p

voltaic (PV) power station on-orbit for increased power to a docked o

spacelab; 2) human tended capability (adding a U.S. Laboratory); 3) interna

human tended (adding an additional PV array and international modules

4) permanent human capability (adding a third PV array, the U.S. habitat m

and two Russian Soyuz capsules).”134 The President also directed NA

develop an implementation plan by September 1993 that included plans to 

tinue and expand international participation to take advantage of po

developments arising from the end of the Cold War.

The President’s endorsement of the new Space Station failed to prote

project from attacks by Congress. In June, a vote to cancel the Statio

defeated by only one vote. A week later, another bid to cancel the pro

failed by 24 votes. Furthermore, scientists continued to say that the 

design had even fewer science benefits than before. With the end of the 

War, the Station’s political benefits had also evaporated.135 Neverth

NASA moved ahead with the program. A Space Station Transition 

worked through July and August to refine Option A. On August 17, G

named Johnson Space Center as the host Center for the new Space S

program, reporting directly to NASA Headquarters, and Boeing Defens

Space Group as the prime contractor.136 The change subordinated the 

prime contractors, Grumman, McDonnell Douglas, and the Rocke

Division of Rockwell International, to Boeing and moved the program 

from Reston, Virginia, to Houston, Texas, along with approximately 

government and contractor jobs.

On September 7, President William J. Clinton formally chose the 

four-person Alpha Station approved in June. Alpha essentially merged th

Space Station Freedom and the Russian Mir-2 into a new Space S

international in scope. Congress and the Administration agreed to a fixed a

budget of $2.1 billion and a total cap of $17.4 billion. This was belo

required annual peak of $2.8 billion identified in the redesign. To manag

the allotted funds, NASA revised the assembly plans and slipped the sche

permanent habitability capability date to September 2003.137

133 Lambright, p. 18. Also Smith, Space Stations, 1999, p. CRS- 3. 134 Statement of the President, June 17, 1993 (NASA History Office Folder no. 009576). Also Lau

178.

135 Marcus Lindroos, “International Space Station (ISS) Plan,” Space Stations and Manned Space

the 1980s and 90s, April 5, 2002, http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld061.htm (a

June 6, 2005).

136 “Space Station Host Center and Prime Contractor Announced,” NASA News Release 

August 17, 1993, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1993/93-148.txt (accessed May 23, 2005). 137 Launius, p. 179.
Throughout the redesign process, President William J. Clinton work

develop closer ties with the new Russian government. During April 3–4, 

President William J. Clinton and Vice President Albert A. Gore met 

Russian leaders at a summit in Vancouver, Canada, with the goal of furth

cooperation in space. President William J. Clinton invited Russia to parti

in the new Station, and Russian President Yeltsin agreed. This summit re

in “a comprehensive strategy of cooperation to promote democracy, se

and peace” and establishment of the “United States-Russian Commissi

technological cooperation in the areas of energy and space” working 

headed by Albert A. Gore and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyr

The United States-Russian Commission met on September 1–2, 19

One result from the meeting was agreement on a three-phase structure le

to a complete Space Station. The first phase, from 1994 to 1997, w

Shuttle-Mir program. It included up to 10 Shuttle flights to Mir as well as 

on Mir by U.S. astronauts. The second phase, from 1998 to 2000, would e

the Station to support three people. It included building the Station’s core a

interface to the Shuttle and would involve the United States, Russia

Canada. Russia would be paid $400 million as “compensation for ser

during phases 1 and 2. The third phase, from 2000 to 2004, would comple

Station’s assembly with European, Russian, and Japanese components in p

On November 1, 1993, Goldin and Russian Space Agency Directo

Koptev signed an “Addendum to Program Implementation Plan” for 

Station Alpha. The plan described the overall concept of the relationship be

NASA and the Russian Space Agency, the components and operation

science and technology utilization during the three phases. It also laid out pr

management and financial management roles and responsibilities. It note

“Russia will become a full international partner in the Space Station.”139 Pre

William J. Clinton, however, was concerned about Russia’s plan to sell m

technology to India. At a November 29 top-level White House meetin

agreement was reached that Russia would be a new partner—“the pr

partner,” the Station would be designated the ISS, and Russia would can

planned sale of missile technology to India and receive $100 million an

from NASA to compensate for the canceled missile sale.140

For the most part, discussions between Russia and the United States h

involved the other Station partners, although they had been kept inform

progress, nor had they formally been asked to approve Russian participat

the program as a partner. On October 16, 1993, the United States met w

partners in Paris, France to formally inform them of its intent to invite Ru

join the Space Station program. On November 7, the partners jointly me

the Russian Space Agency to review the details of the November 1 adden

138 Logsdon and Millar, Appendix B. 139 “Addendum to Program Implementation Plan,” Alpha Station, November 1, 1993 (NASA Histor

Folder 009576).

140 Lambright, p. 18.
Finally, on December 6, 1993, in Washington, DC, the original Space S

partners decided to formally invite the Russian Federation to joi

partnership. Over the next four years, the United States and partners wor

revise the Station intergovernmental agreements and memorand

understanding to accommodate the Russian Federation. All the partners e

Japan signed the new agreements on January 29, 1998.141

The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission met again during December 

in Moscow, Russia. There, Prime Minister Chernomyrdin announced 

Russia had accepted the invitation to join the ISS program. Goldin and K

signed a protocol that expanded the terms of the 1992 HSF Coope

agreement, detailing the activities that were to span the next decade and re

a completed Space Station. The two agencies agreed to up to 10 Shuttle f

to Mir with astronauts spending a total of 24 months on board the Stat

program of scientific and technological research, and the upgrade and exte

of the Mir lifetime to the period 1995–1997. The protocol named some 

specific Shuttle missions for joint Mir-Shuttle activities.142 Russia w

provide 12 hardware construction launches and six to eight utilizatio

resupply flights a year aboard Russian boosters.143 Finally, Albert A. Gor

Chernomyrdin signed a “Joint Statement on Space Station Cooper

describing the steps needed to formally bring Russia into the ISS partners

also noted that NASA and the Russian Space Agency had “agreed to contr

arrangements for up to $400 million through 1997 to facilitate the Shuttl

program, joint technology developments, and the international Space Stati

This agreement ended a longstanding NASA practice that cooperative pro

must not involve an exchange of funds. 

The Shuttle-Mir Program

Russia has had more experience with long-duration spaceflight tha

other nation, using the country’s Soyuz spacecraft to ferry cosmonauts t

from Salyut space stations. The earliest Salyuts were equipped only for 

stays, but beginning with its second-generation Salyut stations, the Soviet 

141 John M. Logsdon, Together in Orbit: The Origins of International Participation in the Space 

Monographs in Aerospace History, no. 11 (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and 

Administration, 1988), pp. 42–43.

142 “How Phase 1 Started,” http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/history/h-b-start.htm (a

July 14, 2006); Also “Protocol to the Implementing Agreement between the National Aeronautics an

Administration of the United States of America and the Russian Space Agency of the Russian Feder

Human Spaceflight Cooperation,” December 16, 1993. Cited and quoted in Launius, pp. 153–155.

143 “Russia Joins Station Effort, Will Get $1 Billion Over Life of Project,” Aerospace Daily

(December 17, 1993): 441 (NASA History Office Folder 009576).

144 “NASA and Russian Space Agency Sign Agreement for Additional Space Shuttle/Mir Missions

News Release 93–222, 16 December 1993, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1993/93

(accessed June 6, 2005). Also “U.S.-Russian Joint Commission on Economic and Techn

Cooperation: Joint Statement on Space Station Cooperation,” December 16, 1993 (NASA Histor

Folder 17040).
began sending crews into space for extended periods. Russia also used mo

uncrewed Soyuz spacecraft, called Progress, to carry food, propellan

supplies to these orbiting outposts.

The final Salyut space station, Salyut 7, was abandoned in 198

reentered Earth’s atmosphere over Argentina in 1991. The Mir space s

replaced the Salyut. This third-generation space station was the world’

permanent space station, orbiting Earth since a Proton booster sent its cor

space on February 20, 1986. The first Mir crew arrived in March 1986

several Russian crews have spent extended periods on board Mir, sometim

more than a year. Space travelers from other countries have also visited M

Mir’s modular design allowed several different vehicles or modules 

docked together (see Figure 3–53). Kvant-1 was added to the core mod

1987. This module housed the first set of six gyroscopes, instrumen

astrophysical observations, and an experimental unit for electrophoresi

also received an additional deployable solar panel.145 Kvant-2, added in 

carried an EVA airlock, solar arrays, and life support equipment. K

weighing 19.6 tons (17,781 kilograms), was added in 1990. This module c

scientific equipment, retractable solar arrays, and a docking node equippe

a special androgynous docking mechanism designed to receive spac

weighing up to 100 tons (90,718 kilograms).146

Figure 3–53. Mir Space Station, 1989, with Base Block, Center; Kvant-1 Module, Righ

Kvant-2 Module, Top.

145 “Kvant-1 Module,” http://www.russianspaceweb/com/Mir_kvant.html (accessed June 8, 2005). 146 Launius, p. 146.
The next Mir module to be installed, Spektr, was originally design

military experiments but had been grounded for years after the intended l

date because of financial problems in the former Soviet Union. It was resc

the mid-1990s with the advent of U.S.–Russian cooperation and was refurb

for its new role—to house experiments for the Shuttle-Mir program. Spek

finally launched on a Russian Proton rocket on May 20, 1995, and was bert

Mir’s radial port opposite Kvant-2 after Kristall was moved out of the wa

module carried four solar arrays and scientific equipment, including mor

1,600 pounds (726 kilograms) of U.S. equipment. Earth observation was the 

of scientific study for this module, specifically natural resources and atmosp

Piroda was the last science module added to Mir. It docked to Mir on Ap

1996. Piroda’s primary purpose was to add Earth remote sensing capa

Along with remote sensing equipment, Piroda carried hardware for ma

processing and meteorological and ionospheric research and equipme

U.S., French, and German experiments.

The Shuttle-Mir program that would span three years was the first ph

the cooperative program leading to construction of the ISS. The program 

the U.S. Space Shuttle and the Russian Mir to provide experience to Am

and Russian crews and to conduct early joint scientific research. The pro

objectives were to: 1) learn to work with an international partner; 2) reduce 

associated with developing and assembling a Space Station; 3) gain opera

experience for NASA on long-duration missions; and 4) conduct life sc

microgravity, and environmental research.147 The program involved laun

the Shuttle to take cargo to and from Mir and leaving U.S. astronauts a

Mir for four to five months. 

The program began February 3, 1994, on STS-63 when cosmonaut 

Krikalev became the first Russian to fly on a U.S. spacecraft to join his Am

colleagues on the Space Shuttle Discovery. The same mission demonstr

close rendezvous between Discovery and Mir. The next year, on June 27, 

STS-71 collected Norman Thagard from Mir, who had spent 115 days o

Space Station after arriving aboard a Russian Soyuz TM-21 spacecraft. He w

first American to visit Mir. On this mission, the Space Shuttle Atlantis for th

time docked with Mir using the androgynous unit on the Kristall module th

been delivered to Mir in 1990. The photos below show a rendition of A

docked to Mir (see Figure 3–54) and the two vehicles connected as photogr

by a Mir crew member in the Soyuz (see Figure 3–55). Table 3–120 li

Shuttle-Mir flights.

On STS-74 in November 1995, Atlantis delivered and permanently att

the new Androgynous Peripheral Docking Assembly to Kristall’s androg

docking unit. This docking module improved clearance between Atlant

147 Frank L. Culbertson, Jr., “Phase 1; Shuttle-Mir Program Overview,” May 12, 1997 (NASA 

Office Folder 15522). Also George C. Nield and Pavel Mikhailovich Vorobiev, ed., “Phase 1 Progra

Report,” NASA Special Publications 1000-6108/ (In English), National Aeronautics and 

Administration, January 1999, p. 3. (NASA History Office Folder 16480).
Mir’s solar arrays on later docking flights. During the STS-74 flight, the S

crew used the orbiter’s remote manipulator system robot arm to hoi

docking module from the payload bay and berth its bottom androgynou

atop Atlantis’s docking system. Atlantis then docked to Kristall. When A

undocked from the docking module, the docking module remained perma

connected to Kristall.148

Figure 3–54. A technical rendition of the Space Shuttle Atlantis docked to the Kristall M

of Mir. This configuration shows the STS-71/Mir Expedition 18 completed in June 1995

Russian-developed Androgynous Peripheral Docking System linked the orbiter to the K

Module. (NASA Photo No. S-93-46073)

148 “International Space Station: Russian Space Stations,” NASA Facts, ISS-1997-06-004JSC, Inter

Space Station, January 1997, http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/references/documents/rus

(accessed June 7, 2005). Also “STS-74,” http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-74/mis

74.html (accessed June 10, 2005).
Figure 3–55. Undocking of Space Shuttle Atlantis and Mir Space Station on STS-71. A 

cosmonaut took this photo of Atlantis connected to Russia’s Mir from a stationkeeping 

on July 4, 1995. (NASA-MSFC Photo No. MSFC-9704176)

A milestone occurred in 1997 when U.S. astronaut Jerry Lin

participated in the first U.S.-Russian EVA. On April 29, Linenger an

Commander Vasily Tsibliev conducted a 5-hour EVA to attach a monitor 

outside of the Station. The Optical Properties Monitor was to remain on M

nine months, studying the effects of the space environment on o

properties, such as mirrors used in telescopes.

In the midst of Shuttle flights to Mir, two serious accidents and a num

system problems on Mir raised doubts about the safety of Mir for U.S. 

and the reliability of the Russian equipment.149 A fire on February 24, 

149 Launius, p. 166.
ignited in the Kvant-1 module when an oxygen canister malfunctione

considerable size, the flames blocked access to one of the Soyuz spac

serving as a rescue vehicle. Although the fire burnt for only about 90 seco

filled the Station with sooty smoke, forcing the crew to wear masks and go

until the area was cleared and it was certain there was no health hazard. It 

day of Station cleaning before the crew could return to their science missi

In the months after the fire, the aging Mir experienced a number of sy

failures and anomalies affecting such things as oxygen generation; carbon d

levels; temperature inside the habitable elements; crew exposure to eth

glycol; power levels; power availability; air quality; and attitude control. The 

spent considerable time making repairs and keeping Mir habitable. 

A life-threatening incident occurred on June 25, 1997, with astronaut J. M

Foale aboard Mir. A Progress resupply vehicle loaded with garbage from 

ran into the Spektr module while Mir-23 Commander Vasily Tsibliev 

attempting a test manual docking of the Progress using remote controls

Progress flew off course, and the crew was unable to regain control 

tumbling cargo ship before it struck a solar panel on Spektr, destroying i

Progress then bounced off the module, breaching the hull and buck

radiator. Seconds later, a hissing sound alerted the crew to escaping ox

which was quickly traced to the Spektr module, now depressurizing, th

Progress had punctured. Crew members cut the cables leading into the S

which sealed off the Spektr from the rest of the Station, and repressuriz

remaining modules, leaving Foale’s personal effects and several NASA sc

experiments inside the sealed-off area. For two days, the crew operated w

power, which forced the shutdown of a number of key systems, includin

oxygen generators and carbon dioxide scrubbers. 

Meanwhile, the gyrodones which kept Mir in the proper attitude 

destabilizing the vehicle and sending it into a spin that required firing th

engines to stop. Two weeks later, on July 7, another Progress vehicle br

supplies and repair materials to Mir. A fly-around of Mir and a 6-hour EV

September 6, 1997 by Foale and Mir Commander Anatoly Solovyev to in

damage to the Spektr module determined the location of the puncture o

module’s hull.150 The Mir crew pumped air into the module, and the Shuttle 

observed that the leak seemed to be located at the base of a damaged solar 

The crew worked for months to return the damaged solar array to use, in

modified hatch so power lines could be routed while still keeping Spektr s

and restore damaged systems.151 Because it was uncertain whether Spektr 

again experience depressurization, even with repairs to the module, it rem

sealed off and the scientific equipment in the module was lost.152

150 Launius, p. 169. 151 Launius, pp. 167–169. 152 Marcia S. Smith, “The Shuttle-Mir Program: Testimony Before the U.S. House of Represe

Committee on Science,” September 18, 1997, http://www.house.gov/science/smith_9_18.html (a

June 7, 2005).
The collision prompted Congress to call on NASA to conduct a 

review of Mir before allowing any more astronauts to visit the Station. 

concerned with the safety of American crews and the advancing age of M

well as Russia’s ability to meet its obligations, demanded an end to the U

States program with Russia. A Task Force Red Team, led by Maj. G

Ralph Jacobson, conducted a safety assessment of Mir to decide whet

allow a long-duration stay of astronaut David Wolf on Mir. The Task Forc

ommended to Administrator Goldin that “it was safe to launch Dave W

Mir on STS-86 and continue U.S. presence on Mir . . .”153 It also reaffirm

conclusions of NASA’s internal reviews to proceed with plans to exchang

astronauts on Mir. A. Thomas Young conducted an additional external a

ment and endorsed the safety process.154 Goldin decided to continu

program even though some members of Congress and the NASA Ins

General opposed it. The Shuttle-Mir program concluded with no further c

International Space Station

Background

The ISS evolved from the U.S. Space Station Freedom program an

Russian Mir space station program. Approximately 75 percent of the har

created for Freedom provided by the United States and its international pa

was incorporated into the ISS design, (see Table 3–121). When comple

ISS will be the largest artificial structure ever to orbit Earth. 

Development

Space Station Freedom was formally terminated on February 1, 1994, 

NASA and contractor officials from Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, an

Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International signed documents marki

end of the Freedom work package contracts. This consolidated responsibil

the design, development, and integration of the program under a single 

contract with Boeing Defense and Space Group. NASA and Boeing sig

major modification to the November 15, 1993, letter contract between th

parties, changing Boeing’s scope of work from a transitional contrac

hardware design and development contract. Work on the components nam

the work packages would continue with McDonnell Douglas and Rocketd

subcontractors to Boeing.155

153 Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, “Statement before the Committee on Science, U.S. H

Representatives, May 6, 1998,” NASA Advisory Council Task Force on the Shuttle-Mir Rendezv

Docking Missions and Task Force on International Space Station Operational Readiness

www.house.gov/science/stafford_05-06.htm (accessed June 8, 2005). 154 “Panels Give Astronaut a ‘Go’ for Launch to Mir,” NASA News Release 97-214, September 2

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-214.txt (accessed June 8, 2005). 155 “NASA Marks Space Station Milestone,” NASA News Release 94-014, February 2, 1994

www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/1993_1995/94-014.html (accessed May 24, 2005).
There were frequent revisions to the ISS assembly schedule. In M

1994, the “preliminary” schedule in the November 1993 Implementation 

was revised, and the first Shuttle launch was moved from July 19

December. The completion date slipped from October 2001 to June 200

the time, congressional critics expressed doubts about the cost and sch

savings that Russia’s participation would provide and repeatedly intro

motions to cancel the program. The 103rd Congress, which met in 199

1994, defeated five attempts to terminate the Space Station program in N

funding bills and three other attempts in broader legislation.156 N

defended its actions by stating that the schedule slip resulted from the n

stay within the $2.1 billion annual budget ceiling. Table 3–122 lis

assembly schedule as of April 1994.

The most serious problems came from the financial and political ci

stances of NASA’s partners. The ESA stopped development of its H

spaceplane in 1993 and removed the attached pressurized module and 

flying platform from its list of contributions to the Station, leaving on

scaled down Columbus laboratory. Canada trimmed $400 million from its $

lion contribution to the Station. Some of Russia’s own launches were de

because of lack of funds for rockets. Political unrest and instability in the 

tered country resulted in dropped communication with Mir and dama

ground facilities. Although Russia’s contributions were supposed to be “en

ing” rather than “enabling,” the country’s contributions were essential

Station could not function without Russia’s critical elements, which inc

the FGB, reboost and refueling, a service module, a power mast, and 

spacecraft for emergency return. To counter charges that Russia would not 

out its commitments, NASA declared to Congress that, if given funds, it 

buy, rather than lease, the FGB from its manufacturer, Khrunichev. Other 

ups were identified in case Russia did not meet its commitments.157 The 

spot, NASA admitted, in the “critical path” was the service module, whi

Russians were to develop as their principal contribution. NASA had no al

tive to that element.

The ISS System Design Review, held in March 1994, was a major tec

milestone. The Review confirmed the validity of the baseline configur

schedule, and cost of the completed ISS. The ISS would operate at an altit

approximately 240 nautical miles (444 kilometers) and would orbit at a 

degree inclination (the Mir inclination) to offer better Earth obser

opportunities. It would have six crew members and 33 standard user rac

science operations.

As summarized in the System Design Review, planned assembly w

begin with the launch of the Russian FGB in November 1997. A do

compartment would be added before the first U.S. launch in December 

156 Smith, Space Stations, IB93017, 1996, http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/93-017.htm#legn (a

June 25, 2005).

157 Bond, pp. 125–127.
The Russian service module was to be added to the Station in January 

followed by the universal docking module and the science power platform

U.S. laboratory module would be launched on the third U.S. flight in May 

It would mark the beginning of human-tended science operations. 

The Canadian-built robotic arm would be launched on the next fli

June 1998, and the addition of the Soyuz transfer vehicle in August 

would allow for extended on-orbit operations. The Japanese Exper

Module would be launched in early 2000, and the ESA laboratory m

would be added in June 2001. Assembly would be complete in June 2002

sequence provided for 13 Russian and 16 U.S. assembly flights. Use 

Ariane 5 launcher to lift the European module to the Station was added 

technical baseline. The U.S. contribution to the ISS, as stated in the S

Design Review, was estimated at $17.4 billion from FY 1994 until asse

was complete in 2002.158

In April 1994, soon after the System Design Review ended, the heads 

various ISS agencies met in Washington to endorse the successful review an

firm their commitment to bringing Russia into the program as soon as possib

Despite the successful review and the administration’s support, cri

from Congress continued, and Congress introduced bills into the 1994 b

cycle to terminate the Station. But a bipartisan coalition of House legislat

June 29 defeated the motion 278-155. This vote was considered a signa

legislators felt that NASA was “getting its act together.”159 On August 

Senate rejected a similar motion to cancel the Station.160

In July 1994, the Space Station Control Board, which inc

representatives from NASA, the international partners, and Boeing, app

a revised assembly sequence (see Table 3–123). The new schedule subst

a U.S.-built solar array for a planned Russian-built array becau

uncertainties whether the Russian array would be ready early enou

Station construction. This array fit between the Russian service modul

the FGB. It would also provide more power to researchers during Ph

The U.S. truss would be attached temporarily to a small truss on top 

U.S. node and moved to a permanent position later in the assembly

revised schedule moved launch of the third Station element, Russia’s s

module, from January to May 1998. The Board also agreed with U.S. pl

purchase the FGB from Khrunichev to assure its availability when 

assembly began and the ESA plans to launch its laboratory module 

Ariane expendable launch vehicle rather than the Shuttle.161

158 “Space Station System Design Review Completed,” NASA News Release 94-53, March 24, 199

ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-053.txt (accessed June 8, 2005). 159 “New Coalition of Lawmakers Gives Space Station Resounding Victory,” Aerospace Daily 171, 

(July 1, 1994): 1. (NASA History Office Folder 009577)

160 “Goldin Hails Solid Senate Vote on Space Station,” NASA News Release 94-127, August 3, 199

ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-127.txt (accessed December 4, 2005). 161 “Station Control Board Ratifies Improved Assembly Sequence,” NASA News Release 

July 15, 1994, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-117.txt (accessed June 8, 2005)

“Worries Over Russian Readiness Led to Station Schedule Shuffle,” Aerospace Daily 171 (July 18

87 (NASA History Office Folder 009577).
On August 31, 1994, NASA and Boeing agreed on key elements 

prime contract for the ISS. For the first time, NASA and Boeing concurr

the scope of work, program schedule, cost ceiling, and fee arrangeme

fiscal year and on the completion and established contractual term

conditions. NASA and Boeing hoped that the final contract would be in 

before the end of the year.162

At the end of September, ISS managers released another updated ass

plan. This sequence incorporated early provisions for a centrifuge to au

the Station’s science capabilities, allowed for earlier construction of Ru

Solar Power Platform in the late 1998 to mid-1999 timeframe, and mesh

latest weight estimates for Station components with Space Shuttle l

commitments. The change provided the Russian portion of the ISS with 

and eliminated the need to transfer U.S. power to the Russian modules.163

The program to modify the Shuttle to increase lift capability, n

because of the launch to a higher inclination, was, according to a 1995 G

Accounting Office (GAO) report, “challenging” and had a “questionable” s

ule, “particularly in a declining budget environment.” The assembly sch

continued to be complicated. It might be impossible, the GAO said, for the 

tle to meet the demanding ISS assembly schedule. The GAO recommende

NASA obtain an independent review to assess the Agency’s plans for incr

the Shuttle’s lift capability, identify the associated risks, and weigh the cos

benefits of the tight scheduling of Shuttle flights for ISS assembly.164 Th

gram also had to overcome another attempt by the House of Representativ

July 1995 vote to cut off funding for the program, ending ISS construction, 

similar Senate motion in September.165

ISS specifications and assembly schedules, as published by N

changed from 1994 through 1998. Updated assembly schedules were iss

September 1994, 1996, 1997, and 1998, each with later dates for assem

the various components.166 Station mass also increased significantly 

831,000 pounds (376,935 kilograms) in 1994 to 924,000 pounds (41

kilograms) in 1996, and 1,015,000 pounds (460,396 kilograms) in 1998

162 NASA had selected Boeing as prime contractor in September 1993, and the two had signed a letter ag

in November. “NASA and Boeing Reach Agreement on Space Station Contract,” NASA News Release 

September 1, 1994, ftp://ftp/hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-144.txt (accessed June 8, 2005). 163 “Space Station Managers Release Updated Assembly Plan,” NASA News Release 

September 30, 1994, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1994/94-164.txt (accessed December 2 

164 U.S. General Accounting Office, Space Shuttle: Declining Budget and Tight Schedule Could Jeo

Space Station Support GAO/NSIAD-95-171, July 1995, pp. 1–2, 10, http://www.gao.gov/archiv

ns95171.pdf (accessed June 11, 2005). 165 Patrice Hill, “House Democrats Fail in Effort To Kill Space Construction,” The Washington Tim

28, 1995. A6; “Senator Tries To Kill Space Station,” UPI, September 26, 1995, NASA Earlybir

NASA Public Affairs Office, News and Information Branch (NASA History Office Folder 16936).

166 National Aeronautics and Space Administration “International Space Station (ISS) Pha

Overview,” (undated, c. April 1995) (NASA History Office Folder 16936).

167 “International Space Station: Assembly Complete With Shuttle,” National Aeronautics an

Administration Fact Sheet HqL-408, September 1994; “International Space Station: Assembly Co

National Aeronautics and Administration Fact Sheet HqL-426, January 1996; “International Space 

Pocket Information Card,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, June 1998 (NASA 

Office Folder 17083).
Construction

Construction of Space Station components and systems progressed 

the Shuttle-Mir flights were occurring, although not without challenge

problems. The first major ISS event of 1995 occurred January 13, 1995, 

NASA and Boeing signed a $5.63 billion contract to manage the building 

core Station, including two nodes, an airlock, and laboratory and habi

modules, as well as their integration. The contract also called for the desig

development of the Station. With its other responsibilities, Boeing was di

to interact with NASA’s international partners to ensure the compatibility 

the components. Soon after, NASA reached an agreement with the R

Space Agency to purchase the FGB, the first ISS element. The two ag

signed a protocol on February 5 in Houston. Texas, reflecting the contract 

negotiated by Boeing subcontractor Lockheed Missiles & Space Co

Khrunichev, the Russian manufacturer of the FGB. The agreement called f

design, development, manufacturing, test, and delivery of the FGB initial

price of $190 million. By the time the contract was signed on August 1

cost had risen to $210 million.168

In May 1995, the ISS completed a series of tests to evaluate elements 

Water Recovery System and its ability to remove bacteria, fungi, an

viruses from the water supply. It was the first time its ability to remove 

particles was assessed. Designers intended to recycle the Station’s water s

once it was occupied. By mid-September, the United States had pro

54,000 pounds (24,494 kilograms) of ISS hardware, with nearly 80,000 p

(36,287 kilograms) estimated to be produced by the end of the year

international partners had manufactured a total of more than 60,000 p

(27,216 kilograms). By the end of the summer, estimates predicted that B

alone would have built almost 41,000 pounds (18,597 kilograms) o

hardware, including pressurized aluminum modules where the Station 

would work, and the payload racks to house systems and experim

Subcontractor McDonnell Douglas had delivered about 5,000 pounds (

kilograms) of qualification and flight hardware. Rocketdyne had built 

one-third of its hardware, including about 30 percent of the solar cells n

for the entire program—more than 75,000 solar cells according to Rocketd

program manager. Rocketdyne had also provided photovoltaic modules 

Russian-assembled replacement solar array that the Shuttle Atlantis 

deliver to Mir. Astronauts were also well into their training for EVAs.

By the end of September, Boeing had successfully completed the 

structure of the U.S. laboratory module. The structure consisted of 

cylindrical sections, two bulkheads, and the hatch openings through whi

astronauts would enter and exit. Also completed were critical design revie

168 “NASA/Russian Space Agency Reach Agreement on Key Station Element,” NASA News Releas

February 8, 1995 (NASA History Office Folder 16936). Also Launius, pp. 181–182. “Boeing, Khr

Sign Contract for Space Station Element,” NASA News Release 95-138, August 15, 199

ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1995/95-138.txt (accessed June 8, 2005).
the communications and tracking systems, as well as demonstrations sh

full compatibility between the ISS’s S-band subsystem and NASA’s T

System that the Shuttle used for communications and tracking.169

In January 1996, the exteriors of the U.S. Station modules 

completed. One module was to house astronauts on board the ISS

nodes, a laboratory module and an airlock, were also completed. In 

1996, the air purification system passed a major test at Marshall Space 

Center. The month-long test evaluated the air purification system’s abi

control carbon dioxide, oxygen, and air pressure inside the living 

laboratory quarters.170 The next month, Rocketdyne successfully cond

tests in the neutral buoyancy simulator on a mockup of a truss that w

house the communications and tracking, attitude stabilization, th

control, and electrical power distribution systems.171 In November, th

U.S. module, Node 1, successfully completed its final pressure test 

Boeing plant in Huntsville, Alabama. Node 1 was shipped to Kennedy 

Center in June 1997.

International Contributions

Although the ESA was scheduled to contribute the Columbus labo

module, by mid-June 1995 the ESA still had not reached agreement ov

size and scope of its involvement in the Space Station.172 On October 1

ESA Council met in Toulouse, France, and approved the program “Eur

Participation in the International Space Station Alpha.” The pro

incorporated a number of cutbacks from earlier plans because of fin

constraints. The approved program consisted of the following:

• Columbus laboratory development and launch, a module perman

attached to the ISS for conducting scientific experiments, research

development.

• The Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), a logistics vehicle launch

an Ariane 5 for carrying research and system equipment, gases

propellant to the ISS, and removing trash from the Station.

• Station utilization preparation and astronaut-related activities.

169 “Space Station Completes Major Life Support System Tests,” NASA News Release 95-61, May 

ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1995/95-61.txt (accessed June 8, 2005); Frank Morring, Jr., 

Station: Contractors Say Project Well Underway; Schedule Critical,” Focus, a Supplement to Ae

Daily (May 19, 1995): p. 278 (NASA History Office Folder 16936); “U.S. Structure for Internation

Station Completed,” NASA News Release 95-161, September 26, 1995, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/p

pressrel/1995/95-161.txt (accessed June 8, 2005); Dave Cooling, “Research Outpost Beyond th

IEEE Spectrum (October 1995):.28-33 (NASA History Office Folder 16936). 170 “Space Station Air Purification System Completes Major Test,” NASA News, Marshall Spac

Center Release 96-96, May 10, 1996, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1996/96-96.txt (a

June 14, 2005).

171 “Space Station Truss Tested in Neutral Buoyancy Simulator,” NASA News, Marshall Space Fligh

Release 96-121, June 13, 1996, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1996/96-121.txt (a

June 14, 2005).

172 Peter B. deSelding, “ESA’s Role in Space Station Still Shaky,” SpaceNews 6 (June 19–25, 199

(NASA History Office Folder 16936).
• Studies of a European Crew Transport Vehicle (CTV), leadi

involvement in the X-38 demonstrator and possible participation 

Crew Return Vehicle.

• Exploitation of the results of the Atmospheric Reentry Demonst

(developed under the Hermes program) for the ATV and CTV.

Soon after the Toulouse conference, the ESA and its prime contr

Daimler Benz Aerospace, signed a contract to undertake Columbus labo

development using a consortium of European subcontractors.173 Table 

lists the Columbus laboratory characteristics.

The ESA intended to use an Ariane 5 to launch Columbus. B

June 4, 1996, the first Ariane 5 launch failed, destroying the launch vehic

its payload. The ESA decided against using the Ariane to launch Columbu

NASA agreed to launch Columbus on the Shuttle. In return, Alenia Aeros

an Italian space company under contract to the Italian Space Agency, 

supply the second and third nodes of the ISS, saving NASA the cost of bu

them.174 The Italian Space Agency also agreed to provide three press

Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules. With the ability to be attached to bo

Station and the Shuttle and with components to provide some life suppo

modules would serve both as “moving vans” by carrying equip

experiments, and supplies between the ISS and the Shuttle, and as att

Station modules. While traveling between the ISS and Earth, these mo

would be isolated, and crew members could not enter them from the S

cabin. This would retain the Station environment.

Construction of the first Italian module, named Leonardo, began in 

1996 at the Alenia Aerospazio factory in Turin, Italy. A special Beluga 

aircraft delivered the module to Kennedy Space Center from Italy in A

1998, with launch planned for 2001. The cylindrical module was approxim

21 feet (6.4 meters) long and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter. The m

weighed almost 4.5 tons (4,082 kilograms) and could carry up to 10 tons (37

kilograms) of cargo packed into 16 equipment racks. Two more multipu

modules, named Raffaello and Donnatello, were planned for later S

flights.175 Figure 3–56 shows Leonardo being processed at Kennedy Space C

173 European Space Agency, Columbus: Europe’s Laboratory on the International Space Station, B

October 1999, pp. 5–7.

174 Harland and Catchpole, pp. 190–91, 196. Also “Space Station Assembly Elements: U.S. Node 2

spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/elements/node2/index.html (accessed June 15, 2005). 175 “Space Station Assembly: Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules,” http://www.nasa.gov/mission

station/structure/elements/mplm.html (accessed June 20, 2005); “Leonardo Module: A ‘Moving V

the International Space Station,” NASA Facts, Johnson Space Center, IS-1998-10-ISS021-JSC, No

1998, http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs/mplm.pdf (accessed June 15, 2005).
Figure 3–56. Processing of Leonardo, the first multi-purpose logistics module, takes pl

Kennedy Space Center on December 3, 1998. The module was one of three from Italy’s 

Aerospazio. Leonardo will be operated by NASA and supported by the Italian Space Ag

(NASA-KSC Photo No. KSC-98PC-0892)

On October 14, 1997, NASA and the Brazilian Space Agency (AE

new international partner, signed an implementing arrangement providin

the design, development, operation, and use of Brazilian-developed 

equipment and payloads for the ISS. In exchange for AEB-supplied equi

and support, NASA would give Brazil access to NASA ISS facilities on 

and a flight opportunity for one Brazilian astronaut.176

Problems with Russia

Although construction was progressing on the Russian FGB, an

module would be assembled and ready for testing in December 1996, Ru

persistent lack of funds was causing a major program crisis.177 In Dec

1995, the Russian Space Agency announced that the Russian government 

FGB manufacturer Khrunichev money for 1995 work and, unless the R

government released the funds needed to work on the FGB and the s

module, it would be unable to meet the FGB’s launch date and unable to 

the service module, both essential components. On March 27, 1996, N

Administrator Goldin stated that he would give Russia one month or six 

to get “stalled . . . effort moving again.” But by July, Khrunichev had rec

176 “NASA Signs International Space Station Agreement with Brazil,” NASA News Release 

October 14, 1997, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-233.txt (accessed June 14, 2005)

177 “Station’s First Module Assembled; Ready for Testing,” NASA News Release 96-253, December 

(NASA History Office Folder 17083).
only a letter as a guarantee in seeking a loan to fund work on the s

module, which was now acknowledged to be “months” behind schedule. B

September, it seemed unlikely that the service module would be ready to l

in April 1998. At the end of 1996, the Russian Space Agency acknowl

that the service module would have to be delayed still further to December 

because the promised funds had not arrived.178

In the meantime, early in 1997, NASA allocated $100 million to Loc

to initiate development of the Interim Control Module as a backup, based 

propulsion module of a classified military satellite. The Interim Control M

could provide propulsion until the service module became available, alt

the interim module would require substantial modifications and would cos

and money. At this point, Russia was seriously in danger of being dropped 

the program. Although promises were forthcoming, money was not. In 

NASA and the Russian Space Agency formally agreed to slip launch 

FGB from November 1997 to mid-1998, 11 months later than orig

planned, and to launch the Interim Control Module if the service module 

not be launched later in 1998. NASA also stated that it would devote “

attention” to contingency planning. On April 9, 1997, NASA announce

the ISS’s on-orbit assembly was slipped to “no later than” October 1998.

April 11, the Russian government arranged for bank loans to Energia by th

of May. Khrunichev soon resumed work on the service module, and N

expressed “cautious optimism” that the ISS was back on track. 

Cost and Schedule Problems

On May 15, 1997, the Space Station Control Board released a 

assembly schedule, Revision C.180 According to this revision, the FGB 

launch in June 1998, eight months later than earlier planned; the U.S. 

would launch in July; and the service module would launch in Decembe

Table 3–125). A Shuttle flight was added as a contingency to send u

Interim Control Module in December 1998 if delivery of the service m

slipped into 1999.181 On May 31 at a meeting in Tokyo, the heads of th

participating space agencies accepted the revised schedule. NASA 

requested that Congress create a new Russian Program Assurance b

category to finance construction of the Interim Control Module and 

contingency options.

178 Harland and Catchpole, pp. 191–194. 179 “NASA Revises International Space Station Schedule,” NASA News Release 97-65, April 9, 199

ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-065.txt (accessed June 13, 2005). 180 “Assembly Sequence, 5/15/97 Rev C,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Inter

Space Station (NASA History Office Folder 11613); “Space Station Control Board Approv

Assembly Schedule,” NASA News Release 97-98, May 15, 1997, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/p

1997/97-098.txt (accessed June 13, 2005). 181 Harland and Catchpole, pp. 191–197.
A September 1997 meeting in Houston, Texas, of representatives of 

ISS partners formally approved Revision C of the assembly and launch sch

that had received preliminary approval in May. The first U.S.-built S

element, Node 1, was scheduled to launch on STS-88, the first Shuttle ass

mission, in July 1998. In June 1997, Node 1 had been shipped from Alaba

Kennedy Space Center to begin launch preparations. The schedule call

launch of the ESA’s Columbus in October 2002. The Russian service m

was scheduled for a December 1998 launch. At an earlier General Desi

Review, the Russian Space Agency had assured NASA that it could me

scheduled launch date. The first ISS element, the Functional Cargo Block

“on track” for a June 1998 launch. The module had completed manufactur

Khrunichev on September 15 and had been moved to the RSC-Energia fac

for further testing.182 However, in November it was announced that, beca

manufacturing problems, the module had fallen two months further b

schedule and the time was unlikely to be recovered.183

Cost continued to be a problem. From 1996 to 1997, cost overruns 

project increased at an alarming pace. In 1997, the GAO released two r

before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space rep

on the program’s cost and schedule status and estimated cost at completion

June report stated that Russia’s inability to meet its financial responsibiliti

resulted in a projected eight-month delay in launching the service modul

GAO report also said that cost control problems under the prime contra

“steadily worsened.” Since April 1996, the cost overrun “more than tripl

$291 million.184 On September 18, 1997, the GAO released a second 

updating the status of the ISS prime contractor’s cost and schedule perform

The situation, the GAO now claimed, had continued to worsen from 

overrun of $291 million in April 1997 to a cost overrun of $355 million 

July 1997.185 In September 1997, NASA and Boeing revealed that Bo

prime contract would have at least a $600 million overrun at completion

NASA needed $430 million more than expected in FY 1998.186 In Nove

prime contractor Boeing admitted to a House panel that Boeing’s costs 

millions of dollars over the company’s contract amount.

182 “Control Board Reports International Space Station Launch on Target, Finalizes Assembly Seq

NASA News Release 97-222, October 1, 1997, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97

(accessed June 14, 2005).

183 “NASA Says Russian Service Module Two Months Behind Schedule,” Aerospace Da

(November 6, 1997): p. 201 (NASA History Office Folder 16949).

184 U.S. General Accounting Office, “Space Station: Cost Control Problems Continue To W

Testimony Before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, June 18, 1997

www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97177t.pdf (accessed June 15, 2005). 185 U.S. General Accounting Office, “Space Station: Deteriorating Cost and Schedule Performanc

the Prime Contract,” Testimony of Allen Li Before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technolo

Space, GAO/T-NSIAD-97-262, September 18, 1997, p. 1, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97

(accessed June 15, 2005).

186 Smith, Space Stations, IB93017, May 16, 2001, CRS Issue Brief for Congress, 

www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/Science/st-58.cfm (accessed March 2, 2005). Also Catchp

197–198.
In September 1997, Administrator Goldin requested that the N

Advisory Council establish a “cost control task force . . . on the Interna

Space Station . . . to conduct a prompt, independent, and thorough analys

the . . . “factors that affect cost growth and control . . . ” The task 

chaired by Jay Chabrow, delivered its report to the Advisory Coun

April 15, 1998. Although the report credited the program with having 

“notable and reasonable progress,” the report estimated that NASA w

need an extra $7 billion, increasing the 1993 estimate of $17.4 billion to 

billion, and up to three more years to complete the project. The 

attributed the cost overrun to “program size, complexity, and amb

schedule goals . . . beyond that which could be reasonably achieved with

the $17.4 billion total cap.”187 Russian participation also was a “major t

to the program. Rather than the anticipated $1 billion cost savings 

United States from Russia’s provision of the FGB and an Assured 

Return Vehicle, Russia’s economic situation had negated most of the sa

depleted a major part of program reserves, and caused schedule slips.188

In NASA’s response to the Task Force report released on June 15, 

NASA identified approximately $1.4 billion in additional costs. The res

also noted that after the report’s release, the assembly schedule was ch

once more to accommodate a four-month service module schedul

(Revision D). Consequently, the first-element launch (the FGB) was mo

November 1998 with ISS assembly complete by January 2004.189 On M

representatives of all ISS partners agreed to officially target a November 

launch for the first ISS component and to revise launch target dates f

remainder of the assembly plan. The partners set an April 1999 target l

date for the service module, and the first ISS crew would be launched ab

Soyuz spacecraft in the summer of 1999 to begin a five-month stay o

Station.190 Table 3–126 shows a partial assembly sequence as of May 1998

January 29, 1998, marked an important ISS milestone. On that day, 

government officials from 15 countries met in Washington, DC, and s

agreements establishing the framework for cooperation among the partne

the design, development, operation, and utilization of the ISS. The “

Station Intergovernmental Agreement,” signed by Canada, 11 member sta

the ESA, the Russian Federation, Japan, and the United States, establish

long term international cooperative framework on the basis of ge

partnership . . . of a permanently inhabited civil Space Station for pe

187 NASA Advisory Council, “Report of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force 

International Space Station,” Apri 21, 1998, http://history.nasa.gov/32999.pdf (accessed June 12, 2

188 “Report of the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Force on the International Space Station,” A

1998. http://history.nasa.gov/32999.pdf (accessed July 18, 2006). 189 “International Space Station (ISS) Response to the Cost Assessment and Validation Task Forc

ISS,” June 15, 1998, http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/releases/1998/cav_response.pdf (a

June 15, 2005).

190 “International Space Station Partners Adjust Target Dates for First Launches, Revise Other 

Assembly Launches,” NASA News Release 98-93, June 1, 1998, ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/p

1998/98-093.txt (accessed June 21, 2005).
purposes, in accordance with international law.” (See Figure 3–57 fo

commemorative plaque issued in honor of the signing.) NASA Admini

Goldin also signed three bilateral memoranda of understanding (MOU) w

heads of the Russian Space Agency, ESA, and the Canadian Space Agen

January 29, and with the government of Japan on February 24. These M

described in detail the roles and responsibilities of the agencies in the d

development, operation, and utilization of the ISS. They spelled ou

management structure and interfaces necessary to ensure the effective ope

and utilization of the ISS. These new agreements superseded previou

agreements signed in 1988 among the United States, Europe, Japan

Canada, reflecting changes to the program resulting from Russian partici

in the program and the 1993 design changes.191

On-Orbit Assembly Begins

On-orbit assembly of the ISS began November 20 with the laun

Russia’s Functional Cargo Block (renamed Zarya, meaning “sunrise”) to 

by a Russian Proton rocket from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazak

Work on this U.S.-funded module had begun in 1994 and was comple

1998.192 Zarya provided the ISS’s initial propulsion and power. Characte

of Zarya are listed in Table 3–127. 

The first U.S. component of the ISS, Node 1, was launche

December 3, 1998, on mission STS-88 (see Figure 3–58 for the module 

the Endeavour’s payload bay). The module was named “Unity” to comm

rate the joining of ISS modules from Russia and the United States and to 

the spirit of international cooperation and achievement in building the St

Unity provided six docking ports for the attachment of other modules. 

also provided external attachment points for the truss and internal storag

pressurized access between modules. Two PMAs connected Unity to En

our at one end and to Zarya at the other. The PMAs also provided passag

for crew, equipment, and supplies. PMA-1 connected to Zarya usi

Androgynous Peripheral Attach System similar to the Russian docking s

used for Shuttle-Mir docking. The other end of the PMA connected to 

using a Passive Common Berthing Mechanism. PMA-2 linked the Shu

Unity using an Androgynous Peripheral Attach System provided with a 

that had an 8-inch (20-centimeter) viewport. The other end attached to 

using a Passive Common Berthing Mechanism. Figure 3–59 shows interio

exterior views of Unity. Table 3–128 lists Unity’s characteristics.

191 “Partners Sign ISS Agreements,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

spaceflight1.nasa.gov/station/reference/partners/special/iss_aggrements/ (accessed June 21, 2005

“Space Station Agreements,” ESA, http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/users/file.cfm?filename=fac-is

(accessed June 21, 2005).

192 The module was built by the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center in Moscow 

subcontract to The Boeing Company for NASA. “Space Station Assembly Elements: Zarya 

Module,”http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/assembly/elements/fgb/index.html (accessed December 3
Figure 3–57. This commemorative plaque was presented on the signing of the Internat

Space Station Agreements (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/reference/partners/spec

iss_aggrements/ISS_Agreements_lo.jpg).

On December 5, the 12.8-ton (11,612-kilogram) Unity connecting m

was first attached to Endeavour’s docking system. On December 6, usin

Shuttle’s 50-foot (15.2-meter) robot arm, Zarya was captured from orbi

the two units docked. Figure 3–60 shows the Canadian-built remote manip

system maneuvering astronauts Newman and Ross into position to work 

Unity module. Figure 3–61 shows the two modules docked together.
On December 7, 9, and 12, astronauts Ross and Newman conducted 

spacewalks to:

• Attach PMA-1 to Zarya. 

• Test a SAFER unit, a self-rescue device should a spacewalker be

separated from the spacecraft during an EVA.

• Nudge two undeployed antennas on Zarya into position.

• Remove launch restraint pins on Unity’s four hatchways for mating 

ISS modules and truss structures.

• Install a sunshade over Unity’s two data relay boxes to protect 

against harsh sunlight.

• Stow a tool bag on Unity.

• Disconnect umbilicals used for the mating procedure with Zarya.

• Install a handrail on Zarya.

• Make a detailed photographic survey of the Station. 

The astronauts completed assembly of an early S-band communic

system allowing flight controllers in Houston, Texas, to send comman

Unity’s systems and monitor the Space Station’s health. The astronaut

conducted a successful test of the videoconferencing capability of the 

communications system that the first permanent crew would use. M

Specialists Krikalev from Russia and Currie also replaced a faulty unit in Z

Unity and Zarya were successfully engaged at 9:48 p.m. on Decem

and Unity came to life at 10:49 p.m. on December 7. At 2:54 p.m

December 10, history was made as Shuttle Commander Cabana and Kr

floated into the ISS together, followed by the rest of the crew. At 4:12 

Cabana and Krikalev opened the hatch to Zarya and entered. On Decemb

at 5:41 p.m., Cabana and Krikalev closed the hatch to Zarya, and they clos

door to Unity at 7:26 p.m. The ISS flew free at 3:25 p.m. on December 

Shuttle Pilot Sturckow separated Endeavour from the ISS. Orbital 

relating to the Zarya and Unity missions are listed in Table 3–129. 

Laboratory Accommodations

The laboratories provided by the United States and the interna

partners were to focus on six major research disciplines: microgravity sc

life science, space science, Earth science, engineering research and techn

and space product development. Table 3–130 provides an overview of th

science laboratories as of early 1999.
Figure 3–58. The Unity Module Inside the Payload Bay of 

Space Shuttle Endeavour, November 19, 1998. 
Figure 3–59. Diagram of Interior and Exterior of Unity Connecting Module. 

(NASA Photo No. 98PC-1731)

Figure 3–60. In December 1998, the crew of the STS-88 Mission began construction of t

joining the U.S.-built Unity Node to the Russian-built Zarya Module. The crew used a 

format IMAX camera to take this photo, which shows astronauts Newman (left) and R

maneuvering into position to continue work on Unity. (NASA Photo No. S99-03771
Figure 3–61. Unity and Zarya Modules. This photograph, taken during the STS-88 Mis

shows the connected Unity Module (Node 1) and Zarya (the Functional Cargo Block) 

Unity’s release from Endeavour’s cargo bay. (NASA-MSFC Photo No. 0100335)

Crew Return Vehicle

One of the requirements for the Space Station was a vehicle for retu

crews to Earth in an emergency. In 1987, NASA Administrator James Fl

requested $3 million from Congress for a study of a Crew Emergency R

Vehicle to be delivered to the Station by the Shuttle and used as a “lifebo

return stranded crew members. In October 1989, NASA issued a reque

proposals for the renamed “Assured Crew Return Vehicle.” Langley Re

Center proposed a Crew Rescue Vehicle (CRV), called the HL-20, that 

carry a crew of eight and would be carried by the VentureStar reusable l

vehicle. The HL-20 proved too expensive, and NASA instead awarded 

million contracts to Lockheed and Rockwell International in 1990 to refin

concepts for a “lifting body” vehicle that would evolve into the X-38. A

time, a 1992 start was planned for hardware development.193

193 Harland and Catchpole, p. 119.
Figure 3–62. The complete ISS as envisioned in 1997 superimposed over the Straits 

Magellan and the Mediterranean Sea. The drawing in Figure 3–63 (next page) shows 

complete ISS with its components and the contribution of each component.

The X-38 project began in 1995 at Johnson Space Center using data 

past lifting-body programs and the U.S. Army’s Guided Precision De

Systems from Yuma Proving Grounds. The design closely resembled the 

wingless lifting body concept tested at Dryden Flight Research C

between 1969 and 1971. The vehicle would be able to return up to seve

crew members to Earth. In early 1996, a contract was awarded to S

Composites to construct two atmospheric test vehicles. Scaled Comp

delivered the first vehicle, the V131, to Johnson Space Center in Septe

1996, where it was outfitted for its initial flight tests at Dryden 

Research Center. The second vehicle, the V132, was delivered to Jo

Space Center in December 1996. 

The test vehicles were shells made of composite materials such as fibe

and graphite epoxy and strengthened with steel and aluminum at stress p

The test vehicle weights ranged from 15,000 pounds (6,804 kilograms) to 

25,000 pounds (11,340 kilograms). The prototypes were 23.5 feet (7.2 m

long, 11.6 feet (3.5 meters) wide, and 8.4 feet (2.6 meters) high, approxim

80 percent the size of the proposed full-size CRV. The vehicles landed on 

similar to the X-15 research aircraft, instead of wheels. The second test ve

the V132, carried a full flight control system, including electro-mech

control surface actuators similar to those planned for the production CRV.
Figure 3–63. This drawing shows the completed ISS and contributions by each of th

international partners, 1998. (NASA Photo No. S99-01389)

The unpiloted, captive-carry flight tests of the test airframes attach

B-52 aircraft began in July 1997 at Dryden Flight Research Center to study 

aerodynamics while attached to the aircraft’s wing pylon.194 The first free

drop tests took place on March 12, 1998, and continued into 1999. The 

included use of a parafoil spanning 121.5 feet (37 meters) with an area of 

square feet (511 square meters). These flight tests studied launch characte

and assessed the operation of the parachute from deployment of the 

drogue through reefing of the main parafoil and landing (see Figure 

which shows the X-38 descending at the end of its first free flig

March 12, 1998). Drop tests used Navstar GPS signals for guidan

production X-38 would weigh 20,000 pounds (9,072 kilograms), w

deorbit engine weighing 5,000 pounds (2,268 kilograms). The X-38 pro

was canceled in 2002 due to budget pressures associated with the ISS.195

194 This B-52 was the same aircraft used for the X-15 program. 195 “X-38,” NASA Fact Sheets, Dryden Flight Research Center, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryde

FactSheets/FS-038-DFRC.html (accessed May 24, 2005). Also Mark Lindroos, Space Statio

Manned Spaceflight in the 1980s and 90s, http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/index.htm

Crew Rescue Vehicle,” http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld054.htm, “HL-20 Crew 

Vehicle,” http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld053.htm, “NASA Assured Crew Return V

and http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/Station/Slides/sld052.htm (accessed May 23, 2005).
Figure 3–64. The X-38 descends under its steerable parafoil over the California desert 

its first free flight at Dryden Research Center, March 12, 1998. 

(NASA-DFRC Photo No. EC98-44452-2) 
0

Table 3–1. Percent of NASA’s R&D or HSF Budget 

Allocated for Space Station

Year (Fiscal) Space Station 

Appropriation 

(in thousands of dollars)

Percent of R&D 

HSF Appropriati

1989 900,000 21

1990 1,800,000 33

1991 1,900,000 34

1992 2,929,000 32

1993 2,100,000 30

1994 2,100,000 27

1995 2,100,000 38

1996 2,144,000a 39

1997 1,840,200b 34

1998 2,351,300 42

a Marcia S. Smith, Space Stations, (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The Li

Congress, 1999), p. CRS-10. Neither the appropriations bill (Making Appropriations for Fis

1996 To Make a Further Downpayment Toward a Balanced Budget, and for Other Purposes

Law 104-134, 104th Congress, 1st sess, [April 26, 1996]), nor Conference Report H. Rept.104

FY 1996, provided any figure at all for the Space Station. b Authorized amount; no amount for the Space Station specified in appropriations bill. 
Table 3–2. Authorized/Appropriated Budget (FY 

(in thousands of dollars) 

1989 1990 1991 

Research and Development Appropriationa

4,191,700 5,366,050 5,600,000 

Space Station Authorization 900,000 1,800,000 2,907,000b 

Space Station Appropriatione 900,000 1,800,000f 1,900,000g 

1995 1996 1997 

HSF Appropriationj 5,573,900 5,456,600 5,362,900 

Space Station Authorization 2,120,900k 2,121,000l 1,840,200 

Space Station Appropriationn 2,100,000o 2,144,000p 1,800,000 Russian Cooperation Authorization

150,100 100,000r 100,000

a Authorized and appropriated amounts for individual life sciences and microgravity science categories were nob House multiyear authorization bill was “laid aside.” Senate multiyear authorization bill (S.916) was agreed to c Of this amount, $18 million was authorized for an Assured Crew Return Vehicle.d Bill was passed by House and sent to the Senate, but the Senate never acted on it and there was no bill passed e From annual appropriations bills.f Of this amount, $750 million was not to be available until June 1, 1990.g Not in H.R. 5158. Added in Conference Committee, October 25, 1990, and signed into law, Public Law 101-5h Amount was specified in Conference Report, October 2, 1991, and was not included in text of appropriat

authorized amount was most likely due to rounding in the appropriations budget document.

i Appropriated “space station activities, including payloads” as stated in Conference Report on H.R. 2491, Hou

$160,000,000 million was to be available for termination costs connected with Space Station Freedom contra

operations and utilization capability development, and no more than $99,000,000 million was to be for suppoStation, not more than $1,100,000,000 billion was to be made available before March 31, 1994. Not more thaventures between the United States and Russia, of which no more than $50,000,000 million was to be o$50,000,000 million was to be only for space science activities other than life sciences.

databk7_collected.book Page 325 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
ons 

r 

r

o p

R

ed 00 b

li

chnelmbeeit. aat0

o

k

a ms bt 1996 

1cy 

2itzm H to.naiae000 R. s t ri nd Team on bi i horSo0m ogrt e Cn tSt ag0,.a propea,esteictare rit o H s–Sephwpe TpopaRept w00. rat uza000 A” rt p Spac Yt.e.u,rc.mhunt on. on aps airr) 1ee H Spo ti pa4css.lcoiropamedttt SF t,aiht -ye1hanineascal on b d $5, nau autiz ac e,m Re ti 1998 report byd an $13vi SmiFiomaie 31,l acghtroe so Htoecevr leha, v Cititoiha ff Neroeti 1st eenn 0 mti. a f edn ons f rchi hhfe rdtetort orren Fl t Te Tss,it cetea Aese S. ae.t”eigee rn au n,xI e Sennfet erpfeai $23eaid es...tco i m Sen unce bmssaa angre rc Ma t l dei ee Co eosuitp wheof R Maiopr conference ns Supp n byn n Spa at ee vvi rosieith Co nothuh tf tee 3rd, ng Appr 1996)) nor for St he e Scioo t hi t caoo tntated ...se oocmce a hr tn e 10 i t c afti 04tzeditdler nd a mmus il oriuee be nt thonottabl 1oed birt p h t e H of ra94, ferr Ohh rougoatiMaka1ti te Spa 1, (H s stltppo h aua s re tnd se rai. s,st a 19 9952chh t emni, C s st ss, a26,r omavnesi,tpate are a a w).( hmc5llseai Systd on tgrer 160.non su f Rlode A proag of $ euse djount l o wnl bee mlo.ail005 . on w of 1 Con bi pri ssi Aest mliiti Re e SlnlHl chiat , (H bi 2l oit(l,ut aiebi SAtcl ons As bi in5ceons , unai he m bi ths,aiom Str t 2s at bei ceqehhre Am995ttrfon LaooTneie St ra f to ses d trat t Th 113 leds acd..neelu byaet 1l2z,dheJ r 2pe Nssed O dns. ii oract 1s d Sh prog s pa tibirpa, vtati e t of eeoatfStdhns errie of $ sse e appropri n shoui000 opri hor nds i unt sepa ess n Acopr h Congress0,om at00 fu unt $30, e an apheota pueoheppr hh d torpiirt whid t os r cs i s pa qu ortpet pproaat cllor t oi ni wpfri idop(ac cnher tll e ah a 5 biaa t n bi amhor te reat n t t,nsii A aih” w ed supp speea ed f s pro 104t $1.dn w cazse0 from eoue00ton lgoSAe Nramiie w 1995iitl, udlo bifior attoohIA Hoihtdc#l eata n Tyzar ri ml cln”nt al ee ap g ouniry tz on Auti.lyeo 02...hon. t bNtr th proph i hor A t mi. azssas. nt7eteheyl aptiarl e CRS-10. ns asii bsl mt-01 ahoriun daeca 20 ot bedgi 3esn p. e as late 104-134,eogf 0oori exc fromen00, rpo,ph atttlcsni$80ahto tn Coo Aau i sseden dtaann i Stn 1999, w.elhl Th e “ ot nnot alrd9au t anieiost r la7. aud s Tat mals/ g lilt.y st nderp Lcncronmocinoat e a ace yealw deplzoariltep for a sa/noicvi hiure bi ct t Spal enlzlrir Russi sh i15-29 tihori aatscm b. oriliphor nprop d Inoal,cr pprovia ire t ona h f of $2yt ciubli rd i s en bbu gnandp/ions nP 10 oul opom porton fo not Aloty io apttniureaap eer s ,ivttlltnelizat al eds notnato ipitwr excess St es, nafa ndm appt g/n000it ori 0,zegor Shut t foroug rna untpormo Rei e bi ori uairrat t m osedhnte wSpace oe Purpos propta useao000 00 st ntsethenthpe s...nts. ri0, c amInt leh ami antta, f50, t uo ap00nlr aop auet e d t e a om.opi acoue rou opesire$ mewith he Hrveeempd Spmn ThaehdrrehmthoomwmnPFrthp20, nudg aArpycfThTDaowSOTia$aTAB j k l m n o p q r s 

databk7_collected.book Page 326 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–3. Programmed Budget (FY 1989–1998) (th

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199

Research and HSFDevelopmentSpacelabb 87,600 93,700 129,300 99,200 112,800 125,5

Space Station 900,000 1,749,623 1,900,000

— 2,162,000 1,939,2

(Total)U.S./Russian 

—

—

—

—

— 70,8

Cooperative Program and Program AssuranceRussian Space 

—

—

—

—

— 100,0

Agency Contract Support/U.S.-Russian CooperationMir Support

—

—

—

—

— 70,8

Russian Program 

—

—

—

—

—

AssuranceSpace Station 842,000 1,661,223 1,790,700 1,996,745 2,125,000 1,918,2

DevelopmentDevelopment– 187,700

—

—

—

—

Management and Integration

databk7_collected.book Page 327 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–3. Programmed Budget (FY 1989–1998) (thousan

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 

Development– 155,500

— 371,200

—

—

Pressurized ModulesDevelopment– 267,200

— 731,200

—

—

Assembly Hardware/ SubsystemsDevelopment– 51,200

— 2,800

—

—

Platforms and ServicingDevelopment– 124,000

— 292,800

—

—

Power SystemsDevelopment– 56,400

— 149,800

—

—

Operations/Utilization CapabilityDevelopment–

—

—

—

— 2,085,500 1,609,7

Flight HardwareDevelopment–

—

—

—

—

— 99,0

Test, Manufacturing and AssemblyDevelopment–

—

—

—

—

— 151,0

Operations Capability and Construction

databk7_collected.book Page 328 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–3. Programmed Budget (FY 1989–1998) (thousan

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199

Development–

—

—

—

— 25,700 58,5

Transportation Support

Development–

—

—

—

—

—

Flight Technology Demonstrations

Development–

—

—

—

— 13,800

Operations Capability and ConstructionAssured Crew 

—

—

— 6,000 7,000

Return VehicleFlight 46,000 79,400

—

—

—

Telerobotic System/ServicerSpace Station 

—

—

—

— 30,000 21,0

UtilizationSpace Station 

—

—

—

—

—

OperationsShuttle/

—

—

—

— 94,100 108,7

Spacelab Payload Mission Management and Integration

databk7_collected.book Page 329 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–3. Programmed Budget (FY 1989–1998) (thousan

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 

Space Station 8,000 9,000 3,000

—

—

Integration Planning and Attached PayloadsSpace Station 

—

—

—

—

—

ResearchSpace Station 12,000 9,000 3,000

—

—

Transition Definition/ Advanced ProgramsLife Sciences 79,100 106,051 137,400 157,650 139,500 186,8

Life Sciences 

—

—

— 94,700

—

Flight ExperimentsHuman 28,600 40,678 58,300

—

—

Spaceflight and Systems EngineeringSpace Biological 10,100 21,067 22,800

—

—

SciencesLife Sciences 38,200 40,306 44,800 50,700 52,900 55,1

Research and Analysis

databk7_collected.book Page 330 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–3. Programmed Budget (FY 1989–1998) (thousan

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 199

Life and 

—

—

— 157,650 407,500

Microgravity Sciences (Total)Centrifuge

—

—

—

— 5,500

Search for 2,200 4,000 11,500 12,250

—

Extraterrestrial IntelligenceLife Sciences 

—

—

—

— 81,100

Flight ProgramAdvanced Human 

—

—

—

—

—

Support TechnologyBiomedical 

—

—

—

—

—

Research and 

Countermeasures ProgramGravitational 

—

—

—

—

—

Biology and Ecology Program

a Empty cells indicate that no programmed amounts were shown in the annual budget. See the individual budgeb Included in the Space Transportation Capability Development budget category.

databk7_collected.book Page 331 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–4. Spacelab Funding History (in thousands of dollars

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 80,400/88,600 87,600

1990 98,900/95,600 93,700

1991 130,700/129,300 129,300

1992 150,200/96,000 99,200

1993 122,600/114,459 112,800

1994 139,900/125,500 125,500

1995 92,300/98,600 90,000

1996 97,000/86,700 86,700

1997 62,400/50,300 40,100

1998 14,200/11,900 9,100
Table 3–5. Space Station (Total) Funding History (in 

Year (Fiscal) Submission Authorization Appropriation 

1989 967,400/900,000 900,000 900,000 

1990 2,050,200/1,749,623 1,800,000 1,800,000 

1991 2,451,000/1,900,000a 2,907,000 1,900,000 

1992 2,028,900/2,028,900 2,028,900 2,029,000 

1993 2,250,000/2,122,467 2,100,000 2,100,000 

1994c —/1,937,000 1,900,000 2,100,000 

1995 1,889,600/1,889,600 1,889,600 2,100,000 

1996 1,833,600/1,863,600 2,121,000 2,144,000d 

1997 1,802,000/2,148,600 1,840,200 1,800,000 

1998 2,121,300/2,501,300 2,121,300 2,351,300 

a Congress reduced the FY 1991 funding requested for the Space Station by $551.0 million. A study to restru

definition of requirements to develop detailed estimates.

b Program was being restructured and no programmed amount was shown.c Space Station Freedom program was budgeted within the Office of Space Systems Development.d Smith, Space Stations, 1999, p. CRS-10. Neither the appropriations bill (Making Appropriations for Fiscal 

Budget, and for Other Purposes, Public Law 104-134, 104th Congress, 1st sess, (April 26, 1996)), nor confe

Station for FY 1996.

databk7_collected.book Page 333 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–6. U.S./Russian Cooperative Program Funding Hist

Year (Fiscal) Submission Authorization 

1994

—a — 

1995 —/50,100 50,100 

1996 29,200/29,200 100,000

1997 38,200/50,000 100,000/100,000

a Budget category not established at time of budget submission.b Budget line item was discontinued. New budget line item, U.S./Russian Cooperation and Program Assurance

databk7_collected.book Page 334 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–7. Russian Space Agency Contract Supporta Funding His

(in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1994 — 100,000

1995 —b/100,000 100,000

1996 100,000/100,000 100,000

1997 100,000/100,000 300,000bc

1998 —/50,000 —

a Changed to U.S./Russian Cooperation and Program Assurance budget category in FY 1998 bud

b Budget category not established at time of initial budget submission. c Consisted of $100,000,000 million from the disestablished budget category of U.S./

Cooperative Program and $200,000,000 million reallocated from elsewhere within the HSF acc

Table 3–8. Mir Support Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1994 —a 70,800

1995 —/50,100 50,100

1996 29,200/29,200 —

1997 38,200/— —

a Budget category not established at time of budget submission.

Table 3–9. Russian Program Assurance Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1997 —a 200,000

1998 —/50,000 110,000

a No budget category at time of budget submission.
Table 3–10. Space Station Development Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars) 

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed Budget Auth

(Full Cost

1989 935,400/842,000 842,000 n/a

1990 1,970,200/1,661,223 1,661,223 n/a

1991a 2,299,800/—b 1,790,700 n/a

1992 —c/2,022,900 1,996,745 n/

1993 2,200,000/2,115,467 2,125,000d n/

1994 —e/1,911,000 1,918,200 1,918,200

1995 1,662,000f

/ 1,749,400 1,749,400

1,752,400g

1996 1,612,800h/1,696,200 1,746,200 1,746,200

1997 1,513,200/1,766,300 1,809,900 1,766,300

1998 1,386,100/1,789,900 1,604,800i 1,386,100

a The distribution by program element (Development, Flight Telerobotic Servicer, Operatio

Advanced Programs) for the FY 1991 revised estimate and the FY 1992 budget estimate wer

review, pending the preliminary results of the 90-day study to restructure the Space Station p

directed by the conference report accompanying the FY 1991 Departments of Veterans Affa

Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991, Pub

101-507, 101st Congress, 2nd sess, (November 5, 1990). b No revised budget submitted shown. c The FY 1992 budget estimate was submitted before completion of the Space Station restr

activity, and no project estimates were available. d Included $13,800,000 million for construction of facilities. e No initial budget estimate shown for this category. f Included $20,200,000 million for construction of facilities. g Included $20,200,000 million for construction of facilities. h Included $14,800,000 million for construction of facilities. i Budget category was renamed “Vehicle.”

Table 3–11. Development–Management and 

Integration Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 169,400/187,700 187,700

1990 230,200/198,258 —a

1991 248,000/— —

a No programmed amount shown.
Table 3–12. Development–Pressurized Modulesa Funding Histo

(in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 188,000/155,500 155,500

1990 366,000/303,900 —

1991 522,100/— 371,200

1992 —/433,500 —

1993 448,400/— —b

a Consisted of Work Package 1, managed by Marshall Space Flight Center. b No programmed amounts shown. Work packages were restructured into other budget categor

restructuring of program.

Table 3–13. Development–Assembly Hardware/Subsystemsa Fund

History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 288,000/263,200 267,200

1990 762,000/666,300 —b

1991 872,600/— 731,200

1992 —/764,600 —

1993 766,200/— —c

a Consisted of Work Package 2, managed by Johnson Space Center. b No programmed amounts shown. c No programmed amounts shown.

Table 3–14. Development–Platforms and Servicinga Funding His

(in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 56,000/51,200 51,200

1990 130,000/107,500 —

1991 34,100/—b 2,800c

a Consisted of Work Package 3, managed by Goddard Space Flight Center. b All activities associated with this budget category were eliminated in the 1991 restructuring. c Costs associated with termination of contracts.
Table 3–15. Development–Power Systemsa Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars) 

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 154,000/120,000 124,000

1990 298,000/249,925 —b

1991 —/367,900 292,800

1992 —/306,500 —c

1993 350,400 —

a Consisted of Work Package 4, managed by Lewis Research Center. b No programmed amount shown. c No programmed amount shown.

Table 3–16. Development–Operations/Utilization Capability 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed

1989 80,000/64,400 56,400

1990 184,000/135,340 —a

1991 255,100 149,800

1992 —/253,600 —b

1993 377,100/— —

a No programmed amount shown. b No programmed amount shown.

Table 3–17. Development–Flight Hardware Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars) 

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1993 —a 2,085,500

1994 —/1,642,400 1,609,700

1995 1,127,000/1,319,900 1,319,900

1996 1,277,200/1,413,300 1,468,900

1997 1,244,400/1,480,500 1,540,700

1998 1,157,900/1,529,000 1,461,000

a Budget category introduced with the redesigned Space Station. Budget categories were restruct
Table 3–18. Development–Test, Manufacturing and Assembly 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1994 —a/87,600 99,000

1995 117,000/94,900 91,900

1996 90,300/68,600 73,500

1997 78,200/97,300 95,700

1998 93,600/97,400 97,400

a Budget category introduced with the redesigned Space Station, not at time of initial budget sub

Budget categories were restructured.

Table 3–19. Development–Operations Capability and Construct

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1994 —a/151,000 151,000

1995 257,800/169,800 169,800

1996 137,100/117,100 112,600

1997 111,300/130,700 115,700

1998 85,400/115,100 —

a Budget category introduced with the redesigned Space Station, not at time of initial budget sub

Budget categories were restructured.

Table 3–20. Development–Transportation Support 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1993 —a 25,700

1994 —/30,000 58,500

1995 100,000/117,600 117,600

1996 83,000/74,100 63,500

1997 76,100/55,700 55,700

1998 47,800/47,000 45,500

a Budget category introduced with the redesigned Space Station. Budget categories were restruct
Table 3–21. Development–Flight Technology Demonstrations 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1994 —a —

1995 40,000/30,000 30,000

1996 10,400/8,300 12,900

1997 3,200/2,100 2,100

1998 1,400/1,400 900

a Budget category was introduced with the redesigned Space Station. Budget categorie

restructured.

Table 3–22. Development–Operations Capability and Construct

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1993 —a 13,800

1994 —/— —

1995 20,200/20,200 20,200

1996 14,800/14,800 14,800b

a Budget category introduced with the redesigned Space Station. Budget categories were restr

Included in Construction of Facilities appropriation. b Included with Operations beginning with FY 1997.

Table 3–23. Shuttle/Spacelab Payload Mission Management an

Integration Funding History (in thousands of dollars)a

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1993b 101,100/94,018 94,100

1994 117,700c/111,500 108,700

1995 112,400/113,900 102,300

1996 85,400/77,600 53,600

1997 54,400/24,200 24,200

1998 6,900/4,900d —e

a This category included funds to manage the mission planning, integration, and execution of al

Spacelab and attached Shuttle payloads. b Transferred to OLMSA program. c Included in OLMSA budget. d Changed to Mission Integration Function in OLMSA realignment of budget categories that o

with FY 1999 congressional budget submission (and revisions to FY 1998 budget submission). e No programmed funds in this budget category. Included with OLMSA funds.
Table 3–24. Space Station Integration Planning and Attached Payl

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 8,000 8,000

1990 23,000/4,975 4,975

1991 15,000/3,000 3,000

1992 —a —b

a Functions associated with Space Station Integration Planning were transferred to the M

Processing budget category beginning in FY 1992. b No programmed funds in this budget category.

Table 3–25. Assured Crew Return Vehicle 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1992 —a 6,000

1993 15,000/7,000 7,000

1994 —/5,000 —

1995 —b —

a Budget category not established at time of budget submission. b The redesigned Space Station was to use an Assured Crew Return Vehicle based on a Soyuz veh

launched on a Russian booster for rescue and crew rotation. The Soyuz Assured Crew Return 

was a Russian element of the Space Station and required no U.S. funding in FY 1995.

Table 3–26. Flight Telerobotic System/Servicer 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 20,000/46,000 46,000

1990 15,000a/79,400b 79,400

1991 106,300/—c —

a NASA was actively pursuing approaches to encourage the private sector to invest in th

Telerobotic Servicer (FTS). The requested funding was to provide for supporting deve

activities. b After consideration of industry responses, a decision was made that the FTS was not a viable c

for full commercial development. The increased budget estimate was consistent with the dec

provide for a NASA procurement through a prime contractor. C All activities associated with this budget category were eliminated in the 1991 restructuring. 
Table 3–27. Space Station Utilization Support 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1993 —a 30,000

1994 —/21,000 21,000

1995 96,600/28,300 31,300

1996 67,900/47,400 —b

1997 72,100/— —

a Budget category not established at time of budget submission. b Budget category disestablished; included with Space Station Research budget category beginnin

FY 1997.

Table 3–28. Space Station Operations Funding History

(in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed Budget Auth

(Full Cost

1990 25,000/—a —

1991 8,900/—b —

1992 — — n/a

1993 35,000/— — n/a

1994 — — n/a

1995c 131,000/108,900 108,900 108,900

1996 152,900/120,000 120,000 120,000

1997 216,700/177,600 142,600 177,600

1998 490,100/490,100 500,200d 490,100

a Deletion of the requested amount reflected a delay due to program rephasing associated w

rebaselining activities of the configuration baseline review, which indicated that FY 1990 re

would not be required to meet the revised program milestones. b Amounts designated for Space Station Operations were deferred or canceled as the Space 

schedule slipped. c Space Station Operations budget category included vehicle operations and ground and transp

operations. d Included construction of facilities.

n/a

n/a
Table 3–29. Space Station Researcha Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed Budget Auth

(Full Cost

1994 —c —d 187,800

1995 — — 254,600

1996 — 277,400 277,400

1997 —/204,700 196,100 204,700

1998 245,100/221,300 226,300 245,100

a Included Mir research and support, utilization support, research facilities, science utilization (H

science utilization (Construction of Facilities). b Reflected amounts used for Space Station activities from Science, Aeronautics, and Tec

appropriation and from Research and Development and Construction of Facilities appropriation

c Budget category not established. d No programmed amount in HSF appropriation. Full cost budget authority included Space 

Research amounts from other appropriation categories (Science, Aeronautics, and Technol

former appropriation categories of Research and Development and Construction of Facilities).

Table 3–30. Space Station Transition Definition/Advanced Progr

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 12,000/12,000 12,000

1990 25,000/9,000a 9,000

1991 36,000 3,000

a Name of budget category was changed to Advanced Programs, consisting of advanced system 

advanced development, and support for human exploration.
Table 3–31. Life Sciences Funding History 

(in thousands of dollars) 

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 101,700 79,100

1990 124,200/106,278 106,051

1991 163,000/138,000 137,400

1992 183,900/145,800 157,650

1993 177,200/140,550 139,500

1994 143,900/188,200a 186,800

1995 145,600/140,700 140,500

1996 —b/136,400 109,600

1997 144,300/97,400 —c

1998 85,500/d —e

a Realignment of budget categories. Life Sciences under the Office of Space Science moved to O

OLMSA had programs for Life Sciences and Microgravity Science Research, Shuttle/S

Payload, and Mission Management and Integration, and corresponding budget categories. b Became subcategory under OLMSA. Included Research and Analysis and Flight Program 

categories. No initial submission for this budget category. c No programmed amount shown. d Realigned to Advanced Human Support Technology Program, Biomedical Resear

Countermeasures Program, and Gravitational Biology and Ecology Program. e No programmed amount shown.

Table 3–32. Life Sciences Flight Experiments 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 54,500/—a —

1990 — —

1991 — —

1992 — 94,700

1993 89,700b/81,089 —

1994 94,700/—c —

a Budget category appeared in initial submission for FY 1989 budget but not in revised budg

programmed amount. This budget category did not reappear in the budget until the FY 1993 

submission (which also listed the FY 1992 programmed amount). b Moved to Space Applications Microgravity Flight Experiments. c Budget category disestablished. No submission or programmed amount shown.
Table 3–33. Human Spaceflight and Systems Engineering 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 —a 28,600

1990 42,800/40,678 40,678

1991 71,000/58,300 58,300

1992 58,600/70,100b —

1993 71,400/—c —

a Budget category not established at time of budget submission. b Included all Spacelab flight program activities. c Budget category disestablished. No submitted or programmed amount for this category shown.

Table 3–34. Space Biological Sciences 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 —a 10,100

1990 27,600/21,200 21,067

1991 32,000/22,800 22,800

1992 31,100/14,600 —b

1993 18,300/— —

a Budget category not established at time of budget submission. b Budget category disestablished. No further funds requested or programmed.

Table 3–35. Life Sciences Research and Analysis 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars) 

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 47,200/38,200 38,200

1990 47,000/40,400 40,306

1991 47,900/44,800 44,800

1992 64,700/47,600 50,700

1993a 55,600/53,940 52,900

1994 49,200/55,100 55,100

1995 51,900/50,700 50,700

1996b 50,400/55,200 55,200

1997 49,800/58,000 —c

1998 50,000/— —

a Moved to Space Applications Microgravity Research and Analysis. b Became Research and Analysis dealing specifically with Life Sciences programs under OLMSA

c Budget category disestablished. No funds requested or programmed for this budget category.
Table 3–36. Lifesat/Radiation Biology Initiative History 

(in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1992 15,000/—a —

a All funding for the Lifesat program was deleted per congressional direction. The progr

additionally reduced by $5 million as part of the congressionally-directed general reduction 

science and applications.

Table 3–37. Life and Microgravity Sciences (Total) 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)a

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed Budget Auth

(Full Cost

1992 —c 157,650d n/a

1993 177,200/140,550 407,500 n/a

1994 351,000/515,300e —f 96,000

1995 470,900/— 467,400 158,200

1996 —/488,500 304,200 210,800

1997 498,500/243,700 243,700 267,800

1998 214,200/214,200 —g 345,000

a OLMSA combined several of the budget categories formerly from the Life Sciences budget c

within the Office of Space Science and Applications, specifically from the Life Sciences and M

Programs together with their supporting Spacelab management function. OLMSA consisted 

Sciences, Microgravity Science Research, Shuttle/Spacelab Payload Mission Managem

Integration, and Space Station Payload Facilities budget categories. Materials Processing, pr

funded under Space Applications, was renamed Microgravity Research, and remained a 

element within the new structure. The addition of the Shuttle/Spacelab Payload Mission Man

and Integration, which was transferred from Physics and Astronomy, served to consolidate the 

research in these disciplines together with their associated space access infrastructure. b Did not include all Life and Microgravity Sciences activities. Included only items related to th

Station. From FY 1994–FY 1998, these totaled: Space Station Facilities ($694,700,000 millio

Sciences and Aerospace Medicine ($122,900,000 million), Microgravity Research ($158,

million), and STS (Space Shuttle)/Spacelab Mission Management ($83,700,000 million). c Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and corresponding budget not established at this time

d Former funding structure. e Reflected new funding structure. f No programmed amount shown. g No programmed amount shown.

Table 3–38. Centrifuge Funding History (in thousands of dollar

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1993 18,400/5,521 5,500a

1994 —b —

a Centrifuge budget category was removed from Space Science budget. b No funds were included in the FY 1994 request for the centrifuge facility. Funding plans we

reevaluated in accordance with NASA’s reexamination of plans for the Space Station.
Table 3–39. Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1989 —a 2,200b

1990 6,800/4,000 4,000

1991 12,100/12,100 11,500

1992 14,500/13,500 12,250

1993 13,500/—c —

a Budget category not established at time of budget submission. b Funded as part of Research and Analysis budget category. c The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) program was deleted from the Space Life 

program. Technology developed under the program was incorporated in the Towards Other P

System (TOPS) program in the Planetary Exploration Research and Analysis program, in acc

with congressional direction. Per congressional direction, funding was terminated for SETI w

Life Sciences program.

Table 3–40. Life Sciences Flight Program 

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1993 —a 81,100

1994 —b/133,100 —c

1995 93,700/—d 89,800

1996e —f

/81,200 54,400

1997 56,400/39,400 —g

a Budget category was not included in FY 1993 budget submission. b No initial budget submission shown for this budget category. c No programmed amount shown. d Budget category not listed in revised budget submission. e Became Research and Analysis budget category dealing specifically with Life Sciences program

OLMSA. f No initial budget submission for this budget category. g No programmed amount listed.

Table 3–41. Advanced Human Support Technology Programa

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1997 — 19,700

1998 —b/17,900 —c

a Formerly Life Sciences budget category under the Office of Space Science. b Budget category did not appear until revised budget request was submitted. c No programmed amount shown.
Table 3–42. Biomedical Research and Countermeasures Progra

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1997 — 44,100

1998 —/40,600 —

a Formerly Life Sciences budget category under the Office of Space Science.

Table 3–43. Gravitational Biology and Ecology Programa

Funding History (in thousands of dollars)

Year (Fiscal) Submission Programmed 

1997 — 33,600

1998 —/30,000 —

a Formerly Life Sciences budget category under the Office of Space Science.
Table 3–44. Orbiter Characteristics 

Component Characteristics

Length 37.2 m (122.2 ft)

Height ~17 m (56.7 ft)

Vertical stabilizer 8 m (26.2 ft)

Wingspan 23.8 m (78.1 ft)

Body flap 

Area 12.6 sq m (135.6 sq ft)

Width 6.1 m (20 ft)

Aft fuselage

Length 5.5 m (18 ft)

Width 6.7 m (22 ft)

Height 6.1 m (20 ft)

Mid fuselage

Length 18.3 m (60 ft)

Width 5.2 m (17.1 ft)

Height 4.0 m (13.1 ft)

Airlock

Inside diameter 160 cm (5.2 ft)

Length 211 cm (6.9 ft)

Minimum clearance 91.4 cm (3 ft)

Opening capacity 46 cm by 46 cm by 127 cm 

(1.5 ft by 1.5 ft by 4.2 ft)

Payload bay 4.6 m by 18.3 m (15 ft by 60 ft)

Forward fuselage crew cabin 71.5 cu m (2,525 cu ft)

Payload bay doors

Length 18.3 m (60 ft)

Diameter 4.6 m (15.1 ft)

Surface area 148.6 sq m

Weight 1,480 kg (3,263 lb)

Wing

Length 18.3 m (60 ft)

Maximum thickness 1.5 m (4.9 ft)

Elevons 4.2 m and 3.8 m (13.8 ft and 12.5 ft)

Tread width 6.9 m (22.7 ft)

Structure type Semi-monocoque

Structure material Aluminum

Gross takeoff weight Variable depending on payload and o

board consumables

Nominal landing weight Variable

Inert weight (approx.) 74,844 kg (165,003 lb)
Table 3–44. Orbiter Characteristics (Continued)

Component Characteristics

Main engines

Number 3

Average thrust (104%) 1,752 kN (393,800 lb) at sea level

Nominal burn time 522 seconds

Table 3–45. Endeavour Construction Milestones 

Date Milestone

February 15, 1982 Begins structural assembly of crew 

module

July 31, 1987 Contract awarded to Rockwell

September 28, 1987 Begins structural assembly of aft-fus

December 22, 1987 Wings arrive at Palmdale, California

Grumman

August 1, 1987 Final assembly begins

July 6, 1990 Final assembly completed

April 25, 1991 Rollout from Palmdale, California

May 7, 1991 Delivery to Kennedy Space Center

April 6, 1992 Flight readiness firing

May 7, 1992 First flight (STS-49)
Table 3–46. Space Shuttle Payload Accommodation a

Location/Accommodation Description

Payload Bay

Attached Attached payloads were generally la

payloads (14.5 ft/4.4 m maximum 

diameter) mounted directly to the pa

bay attach fittings on an “across the 

structure. 

Deployable/Retrieval Deployable/retrievable payloads were 

offered the same basic set of services 

attached payloads with extensions allo

for mate/demate with attach hardwar

remote command, and control, etc. 

Sidewall The sidewall payloads mounted to th

orbiter’s sidewall.

Payload Carriers

Spacelab Pallet Spacelab pallets were U-shaped plat

for mounting payloads. The pallets h

hard points for mounting heavy 

equipment. Each pallet could hold u

tons (2,722 kg) if the weight was eve

distributed. Each pallet was 13 ft (3.

wide and 10 ft (3 m) long.

Mission Peculiar Equipment Support 

Structure (MPESS)

The MPESS was an A-frame structu

spanning the width of the payload ba

Payloads could be mounted on the to

sides of the structure.

GAS The GAS carrier system accommoda

payloads in canisters mounted in the 

Shuttle payload bay on the sidewall 

a cross-bay truss structure. 

Hitchhiker The Hitchhiker carrier was intended 

payloads requiring power, data, and 

command services. Hitchhiker provi

real-time data transfer for experimen

and crew control/display capability.

Hitchhiker-Jr. The Hitchhiker-Jr. (HH-Jr.) carrier 

provided mechanical and electrical 

interfaces similar to the GAS carrier 

had avionics to monitor carrier and 

payload functions and power service
Table 3–46. Space Shuttle Payload Accommodation a (Continue

Location/Accommodation Description

SPARTAN SPARTAN was a reusable, three-axi

stabilized, free-flying carrier providi

extended mission flight opportunitie

variety of scientific studies in low-E

orbit. SPARTAN was taken into orbi

the Space Shuttle, deployed, and ope

via ground commands. The satellite 

retrieved either on the same Shuttle 

mission or on a later mission and ret

to the ground for reuse. 

Space Experiment Module (SEM) SEM was a canister assembly provid

self-contained structure, power, 

command, and data storage capabilit

for microgravity experiments. 

Crew Compartment

Middeck The middeck offered accommodatio

a pressurized environment for paylo

that could be stowed within a midde

locker or mounted on an adapter plat

replaced one or more lockers.

Pressurized Modules

Spacelab Spacelab modules added significant 

“shirtsleeve” workspace and laborato

facilities to the Space Shuttle. (See 

following sections.)

SPACEHAB SPACEHAB modules also added 

significant “shirtsleeve” workspace a

laboratory facilities to the Space Shu

(See following sections.)

a “Payload Accommodations and Services,” http://shuttlepayloads.jsc.nasa.gov/flying/accommo

accommodations.htm (accessed July 12, 2005).
Table 3–47. Spacelab Module Characteristicsa

Item Characteristic

Diameter 4.06 m (13.3 ft)

Module length (1 segment) 2.70 m (8.9 ft)

Module shell material 2219-T851 aluminum

Electrical power 28 VDC +/- 4 VDC

Internal ambient temperature 18°-27°C (64.4°-80.6°F)

Humidity 30%-70% relative humidity

Air leakage 1.3 kg/day max (2.9 lb)

Payload mass 4,500 kg (9,921 lb) (long module)

Payload volume 22.2 cu m (784 cu ft) (long module)

Electrical power to payload 3.9 kW continuous

6.5 kW peak

Other features of payload Optical window

Airlock

a E. Vallerani, “Pressurised Module Elements from Spacelab to Columbus,” in Spacelab, 1983–19

Years Experience in Cooperative Manned Space Activities; Proceedings from the CEAS E

Forum, October 1993, Florence, Italy (Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronaut

Astronautics, 1993), p. 16.
Table 3–48. Spacelab Missions (1989–1998a) 

Mission Date Purpose Configura

Astro-1/STS-35 December 2, 1990 Astronomy Igloo plus 2 p

Spacelab Life Sciences June 5, 1991 Space life Long module

(SLS)-1/STS–40 sciences

International January 22, 1992 Microgravity Long module

Microgravity Laboratory studies

(IML)-1/STS-42

Atmospheric Laboratory March 24, 1992 Atmospheric Igloo plus 2 p

for Applications and studies

Science (ATLAS)-

1/STS-45

United States June 25, 1992 Microgravity Long module

Microgravity Laboratory studies extended dur

(USML)-1/STS-50 orbiter

Spacelab J1/STS-47 September 12, 1992 Microgravity Long module

and life sciences

ATLAS-2/STS-56 April 8, 1993 Atmospheric Igloo plus 1 p

studies

Spacelab D2/STS-55 April 26, 1993 Microgravity Long module 

studies U.S. Microgr

Laboratory

SLS 2 LM/STS-58 October 18, 1993 Life sciences Long module

extended dur

orbiter

IML-2/STS-65 July 8, 1994 Microgravity Long module

extended dur

orbiter

ATLAS-3/STS-66 November 3, 1994 Atmospheric Igloo plus 2 p

Physics

Astro-2/STS-67 March 2, 1995 Astronomy Igloo plus 2 

pallets, exten

duration orbi

Spacelab-Mir LM/ June 27, 1995 Life sciences Long module

STS-71

USML-2/STS-73 October 20, 1995 Microgravity Long module

extended dur

orbiter

Life and Microgravity June 20, 1996 Life and Long module

Spacelab (LMS) 1/ microgravity extended dur

STS-78 sciences orbiter

Microgravity Science April 4, 1997 Materials Long module

Laboratory (MSL)-1/ sciences extended dur

STS-83b orbiter
Table 3–48. Spacelab Missions (1989–1998a) (Continued)

Mission Date Purpose Configura

MSL-1R/STS-94 July 1, 1997 Materials Long module

(reflight of MSL-1) sciences extended dur

orbiter

Neurolab/STS-90 April 17, 1998 Neurobiological Long module

life sciences extended dur

orbiter

a “Spacelab,” European Space Agency, http://www.esa.int/esapub/achievements/Sc72s4.pdf (acce

July 22, 2005). b Shortened mission due to concerns about one of the three fuel cells. Reflown on STS-94.

Table 3–49. SPACEHAB Missionsa

Mission Date Payload

STS-57 June 21, 1993 SPACEHAB Module

STS-60 February 3, 1994 SPACEHAB Module

STS-63 February 3, 1995 SPACEHAB Module

STS-76 March 22, 1996 SPACEHAB Module

STS-77 May 19, 1996 SPACEHAB Module

STS-79 September 16, 1996 Logistics Double Mod

STS-81 January 12, 1997 Logistics Double Mod

STS-84 May 15, 1997 Logistics Double Mod

STS-86 September 25, 1997 Logistics Double Mod

STS-89 January 22, 1998 Logistics Double Mod

STS-91 June 2, 1998 Logistics Single Mod

SPACEHAB Universa

Communications Syst

STS-95 October 29, 1998 SPACEHAB Module

a “Past Missions,” SPACEHAB, http://spacehab.com/missions/past_shi.htm (accessed July 5, 200
Table 3–50. Space Shuttle Extravehicular Activ

Mission Date Astronaut Individual EVA Time Cu

per Astronaut 

STS-37 April 7, 1991 Ross and Apt 4 hr, 26 min 

April 8, 1991 Ross and Apt 5 hr, 47 min 

STS-49 May 10, 1992 Thuot and Hieb 3 hr, 43 min 

May 11, 1992 Thuot and Hieb 5 hr, 30 min 

May 13, 1992 Thuot, Hieb, and 8 hr, 29 min 

Akers 

May 14, 1992 Thornton and Akers 7 hr, 44 min 

STS-54 January 17, 1993 Runco and Harbaugh 4 hr, 28 min 

STS-57 June 25, 1993 Low and Wisoff 5 hr, 50 min 

databk7_collected.book Page 356 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–50. Space Shuttle Extravehicular Activity (19

databk7_collected.book Page 357 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Mission Date Astronaut Individual EVA Time C

per Astronaut 

STS-51 September 16, 1993 Newman and Walz 7 hr, 5 min 

STS-61 December 4, 1993 Musgrave and 7 hr, 54 min 

Hoffman 

December 5, 1993 Akers and Thornton 6 hr, 36 min 

STS-61 December 6, 1993 Musgrave and 6 hr, 47 min 

Hoffman 

December 7, 1993 Akers and Thornton 6 hr, 50 mi

n 

December 8, 1993 Musgrave and 7 hr, 21 min 

Hoffman 

STS-64 September 16, 1994 Lee and Meade 6 hr, 51 min 

STS-63 February 9, 1995 Foale and Harris 4 hr, 39 min 

STS-69 September 16, 1995 Voss and Gernhardt 6 hr, 46 min 
Table 3–50. Space Shuttle Extravehicular Activity (19

databk7_collected.book Page 358 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Mission Date Astronaut Individual EVA Time Cu

per Astronaut 

STS-72 January 15, 1996 Chiao and Barry 6 hr, 9 min 

January 17, 1996 Chiao and Scott 6 hr, 54 min 

STS-76 March 27, 1996 Clifford and Godwin 6 hr, 2 min 

STS-82b February 13, 1997 Smith and Lee 6 hr, 42 min 

February 14, 1997 Harbaugh and Tanner 7 hr, 27 min 

February 15, 1997 Smith and Lee 7 hr, 11 min February 16, 1997 Harbaugh and Tanner 6 hr, 34 min 

February 17, 1997 Smith and Lee 5 hr, 17 min 
Table 3–50. Space Shuttle Extravehicular Activity (19

Mission Date Astronaut Individual EVA Time C

per Astronaut 

STS-87c November 24, 1997 Scott and Doi 7 hr, 43 min 

December 3, 1997 Scott and Doi 5 hr, 0 min 

STS-88d December 7, 1998 Ross and Newman 7 hr, 21 min 

December 8, 1998 Ross and Newman 7 hr, 2 min

December 12, 1998 Ross and Newman 6 hr, 59 min

a David S.F. Portree and Robert M. Treviño, Walking to Olympus: An EVA Chronology, Monographs in Aero

Space Administration, 1997), pp. 80–126, Available at http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/factsheets/pdfs(London: Springer, 2004), pp. 188–189; Shuttle Crew Operations Manual, p. 2-11-1.

b “STS-82 Mission Chronology,” http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/chron/sts-82.htm (accessed July 5, 2005c “STS-87 Shuttle Mission Archive,” http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/shuttle/missions/sts-87/mission-sts-8d “STS-88 Shuttle Mission Archive,” http://w

ww-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/shuttle/missions/sts-88/mission-sts-8

databk7_collected.book Page 359 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary 

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

28 STS-29/Discovery March 13, 1989 – CDR: Michael L. Coats 

March 18, 1989 PLT: John E. Blaha 

MS: James F. Buchli, Robert C. Springer, James P. 

29 STS-30/Atlantis May 4, 1989 – CDR: David M. Walker 

May 8, 1989 PLT: Ronald J. Grabe MS: Mark C. Lee, Norman E

Mary L. Cleave 30 STS-28/Columbia August 8, 1989 – CDR: Brewster H. Shaw, Jr. 

August 13, 1989 PLT: Richard N. Richards 

MS: James C. Adamson, 

David C. Leestma, Mark N. 

31 STS-34/Atlantis October 18, 1989 – CDR: Donald E. Williams 

October 23, 1989 PLT: Michael J. McCulley MS: Shannon W. Lucid, Franklin Chang-Diaz, Ellen S. Baker 32 STS-33/Discovery November 22, 1989 – CDR: Frederick D. Gregory November 27, 1989 PLT: John E. Blaha 

MS: Manley L. Carter, Jr., 

F. Story Musgrave, Kathryn C. Thornton

databk7_collected.book Page 360 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM
Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989

databk7_collected.book Page 361 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

33 STS-32/Columbia January 9, 1990 – CDR: Daniel C. Brandenstei

January 20, 1990 PLT: James D. Wetherbee 

MS: Bonnie J. Dunbar, Marsha S. Ivins, G. David L

34 STS-36/Atlantis February 28, 1990 – CDR: John O. Creighton 

March 4, 1990 PLT: John H. Casper 

MS: David C. Hilmers, 

Richard M. Mullane, Pierre J. Thuot

35 STS-31/Discovery April 24, 1990 – CDR: Loren J. Shriver 

April 28, 1990 PLT: Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 

MS: Steven A. Hawley, Kathryn D. Sullivan, Bruce McCandless, II

36 STS-41/Discovery October 6, 1990 – CDR: Richard N. Richards 

October 10, 1990 PLT: Robert D. Cabana

MS: Bruce E. Melnick, Thomas D. Akers, William M. Shepherd

37 STS-38/Atlantis November 15, 1990 – CDR: Richard O. Covey 

November 20, 1990 PLT: Frank L. Culbertson, Jr

MS: Carle J. Meade, Robert C. Springer, Charles D. Gemar
Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989

databk7_collected.book Page 362 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

38 STS-35/Columbia December 2, 1990 – CDR: Vance D. Brand 

December 10, 1990 PLT: Guy S. Gardner 

MS: John M. Lounge, Jeffrey A. Hoffman, Robert A.R. ParkerPS: Ronald A. Parise, 

Samuel T. Durrance

39 STS-37/Atlantis April 5, 1991 – CDR: Steven R. Nagel 

April 11, 1991 PLT: Kenneth D. Cameron 

MS: Linda M. Godwin, 

Jerry L. Ross, Jay Apt

40 STS-39/Discovery April 28, 1991 – CDR: Michael L. Coats 

May 6, 1991 PLT: L. Blaine Hammond, Jr

MS: Gregory J. Harbaugh, Donald McMonagle, Guion S. Bluford, Jr., Charles Lacy Veach, Richard J. Hieb

41 STS-40/Columbia June 5, 1991 – CDR: Bryan D. O’Connor 

June 14, 1991 PLT: Sidney M. Gutierrez 

MS: James P. Bagian, Tamara E. Jernigan, Margaret Rhea SeddonPS: F. Drew Gaffney, Millie Hughes-Fulford
Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989

databk7_collected.book Page 363 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

42 STS-43/Atlantis August 2, 1991 – CDR: John E. Blaha 

August 11, 1991 PLT: Michael A. Baker 

MS: Shannon W. Lucid, James C. Adamson, 

G. David Low

43 STS-48/Discovery September 12, 1991 – CDR: John O. Creighton 

September 18, 1991 PLT: Kenneth S. Reightler, J

MS: James F. Buchli, Charles D. Gemar, Mark N. Brown

44 STS-44/Atlantis November 24, 1991 – CDR: Frederick D. Gregory 

December 1, 1991 PLT: Terence T. Henricks 

MS: F. Story Musgrave, Mario Runco, Jr., James S. Voss

PS: Thomas J. Hennen

45 STS-42/Discovery January 22, 1992 – CDR: Ronald J. Grabe 

January 30, 1992 PLT: Stephen S. Oswald 

MS: Norman E. Th agard, David C. Hilmers, William F. ReaddyPS: Roberta L. Bondar, Ulf D. Merbold
Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989

databk7_collected.book Page 364 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

46 STS-45/Atlantis March 24, 1992 – CDR: Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 

April 2, 1992 PLT: Brian Duffy 

MS: Kathryn D. Sullivan, 

David C. Leestma, C. Michael FoalePS: Byron K. Lichtenberg, Dirk D. Frimout

47 STS-49/Endeavour May 7, 1992 – CDR: Daniel C. Brandenstei

May 16, 1992 PLT: Kevin P. Chilton 

MS: Pierre J. Thuot, 

Kathryn C. Thornton, Richard J. Hieb, Thomas D. Bruce E. Melnick

48 STS-50/Columbia June 25, 1992 – CDR: Richard N. Richards 

July 9, 1992 PLT; Kenneth D. Bowersox 

PC: Bonnie J. Dunbar MS: Ellen S. Baker, Carl J. MeadePS: Lawrence J. DeLucas, Eugene H. Trinh

49 STS-46/Atlantis July 31, 1992 – CDR: Loren J. Shriver 

August 8, 1992 PLT: Andrew M. Allen 

PC: Jeffrey A. Hoffman MS: Franklin R. Chang-Diaz

Claude Nicollier, Marsha S. IvinsPS: Franco Malerba
databk7_collected.book Page 365 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

50 STS-47/Endeavour September 12, 1992– CDR: Robert L. Gibson 

September 20, 1992 PLT: Curtis L. Brown, Jr. 

PC: Mark C. Lee MS: Jerome Apt, N. Jan Dav

Mae C. JemisonPS: Mamoru Mohri

51 STS-52/Columbia October 22, 1992– CDR: James D. Wetherbee 

November 1, 1992 PLT: Michael A. Baker 

MS: Charles Lacy Veach, William M. Shepherd, Tamara E. Jernigan PS: Steven G. MacLean 

52 STS-53/Discovery December 2, 1992– CDR: David M. Walker 

December 9, 1992 PLT: Robert D. Cabana

MS: Guion S. Bluford, Jr., James S. Voss, Michael R. Clifford

53 STS-54/Endeavour January 13, 1993 – CDR: John H. Casper 

January 19, 1993 PLT: Donald R. McMonagle

MS: Mario Runco, Jr., Gregory J. Harbaugh, Susan J. Helms

54 STS-56/Discovery April 8, 1993 – CDR: Kenneth D. Cameron 

April 17, 1993 PLT: Stephen S. Oswald 

MS: C. Michael Foale, Kenneth D. Cockrell, Ellen Ochoa
Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989

databk7_collected.book Page 366 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

55 STS-55/Columbia April 26, 1993 – CDR: Steven R. Nagel 

May 6, 1993 PLT: Terence T. Henricks 

MS: Jerry L. Ross, 

Charles J. Precourt, 

Bernard A. Harris, Jr.PS: Ulrich Walter, Hans W. Schlegel

56 STS-57/Endeavour June 21, 1993 – CDR: Ronald J. Grabe 

July 1, 1993 PLT: Brian Duffy 

MS: G. David Low, Nancy J. Sherlock (Currie), Peter J.K. Wisoff, Janice E. V

57 STS-51/Discovery September 12, 1993 – CDR: Frank L. Culbertson, J

September 22, 1993 PLT: William F. Readdy 

MS: James. H. Newman, Daniel W. Bursch, Carl E. W

58 STS-58/Columbia October 18, 1993 – CDR: John E. Blaha 

November 1, 1993 PLT: Richard A. Searfoss 

MS: Margaret Rhea Seddon, William S. McArthur, Jr., 

David A. Wolf, Shannon W. LucidPS: Martin J. Fettman
Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989

databk7_collected.book Page 367 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

59 STS-61/Endeavour December 2, 1993 – CDR: Richard O. Covey 

December 13, 1993 PLT: Kenneth D. Bowersox 

MS: Kathryn C. Thornton, CNicollier, Jeffrey A. HoffmaMusgrave, Thomas D. Akers

60 STS-60/Discovery February 3, 1994 – CDR: Charles F. Bolden, Jr. 

February 11, 1994 PLT: Kenneth S. Reightler, J

MS: N. Jan Davis, Ronald MFranklin R. Chang-Diaz, Sergei K. Krikalev 

61 STS-62/Columbia March 4, 1994 – CDR: John H. Casper 

March 18, 1994 PLT: Andrew M. Allen 

MS: Pierre J. Thuot, Charles Marsha S. Ivins 

62 STS-59/Endeavour April 9, 1994 – CDR: Sidney M. Gutierrez 

April 20, 1994 PLT: Kevin P. Chilton 

MS: Jerome Apt, Michael RThomas D. JonesPC: Linda M. Godwin

63 STS-65/Columbia July 8, 1994 – CDR: Robert D. Cabana 

July 23, 1994 PLT: James D. Halsell, Jr.

MS: Richard J. Hieb, Carl ELeroy Chiao, Donald A. ThoPS: Chiaki Naito-Mukai
Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989

databk7_collected.book Page 368 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

64 STS-64/Discovery September 9, 1994 – CDR: Richard N. Richards 

September 20, 1994 PLT: L. Blaine Hammond, Jr

MS: Jerry M. Linenger, Susan J. Helms, Carl J. MeaMark C. Lee 

65 STS-68/Endeavour September 30, 1994 – CDR: Michael A. Baker 

October 11, 1994 PLT: Terrence W. Wilcutt 

MS: Steven L. Smith, Daniel Peter J.K. WisoffPC: Thomas D. Jones

66 STS-66/Atlantis November 3, 1994 – CDR: Donald R. McMonagl

November 14, 1994 PLT: Curtis L. Brown, Jr. 

MS: Joseph R. Tanner, Jean-Clervoy, Scott E. Parazynski PC: Ellen Ochoa 

67 STS-63/Discovery February 3, 1995 – CDR: James D. Wetherbee 

February 11, 1995 PLT: Eileen M. Collins 

MS: C. Michael Foale, JanicVladimir G. Titov PC: Bernard A. Harris, Jr.
Table 3–51. Space Shuttle Missions Summary (1989

databk7_collected.book Page 369 Monday, September 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Flt No. Mission/Orbiter Dates Crew 

68 STS-67/Endeavour March 2, 1995 – CDR: Stephen S. Oswald 

March 18, 1995 PLT: William G. Gregory 

MS: John M. Grunsfeld, 

Wendy B. LawrencePC: Tamara E. JerniganPS: Samuel T. Durrance, Ronald A. Parise

69 STS-71/Atlantis June 27, 1995 – CDR: Robert L. Gibson 

July 7, 1995 PLT: Charles J. Precourt 

MS: Gregory J. Harbaugh, Bonnie J. Dunbar PC: Ellen S. Baker

70 STS-70/Discovery July 13, 1995 – CDR: Terence T. Henricks 

July 22, 1995 PLT: Kevin R. Kregel

MS: Nancy J. Sherlock (CurDonald A. Thomas, Mary El

71 STS-69/Endeavour September 7, 1995 – CDR: David M. Walker 

September 18, 1995 PLT: Kenneth D. Cockrell 

MS: James H. Newman, Michael L. GernhardtPC: James S. Voss

72 STS-73/Columbia October 20, 1995 – CDR: Kenneth D. Bowersox 

November 5, 1995 PLT: Kent V. Rominger 

MS: Catherine G. Coleman, Michael E. Lopez-AlegriaPC: Kathryn C. ThorntonPS: Fred W. Leslie, Albert S