Scrape wikipedia-science: 14093 new, 3913 updated, 18491 total (kb-cron)
This commit is contained in:
parent
30d6be720e
commit
d6986a0641
36
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelita_(spacecraft)-0.md
Normal file
36
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelita_(spacecraft)-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Aelita (spacecraft)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelita_(spacecraft)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:50.179773+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Aelita was a Soviet design of a version of a Soyuz spacecraft started in 1978. The Aelita was part of the Soyuz programme, but was planned to use an unmanned Soyuz spacecraft as an infrared astronomy telescope satellite. A Soyuz spacecraft was planned to be modified to become the Aelita project satellite. The Aelita project was not completed, and was cancelled in 1982.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Design ==
|
||||
The Soviet plan for an infrared astronomy satellite began in 1965 as part of the Soviet Cloud Space Station plan. The Cloud Space Station developed into the MKBS/MOK space station complex plan. In February 1976, both production of Aelita and production of the MKBS/MOK-Mir space station were approved. Aelita was to have a gross mass of 7,350 kilograms (16,200 lb). Aelita's plans had a passive space docking port so that the spacecraft could be serviced by Soyuz manned spacecraft. Crew members could replace the telescope film cassettes every six months and repair or replace instruments if needed. Since the spacecraft/satellite would not need to go through reentry into the atmosphere of Earth, the Soyuz descent equipment and orbital modules would be removed, so the infrared astronomy telescope could be installed. The telescope was to be placed in a large pressurized cylinder in the Soyuz spacecraft. By 1978, the Aelita instrument payload was in the design and development phase. Soyuz spacecrafts were built by the Experimental Design Bureau. In May 1974, the N1 launch vehicle and the MKBS space station both were cancelled after the many failures of the N1 rocket. Aelita was a subset of the MKBS space station, not Mir, so Aelita was also cancelled. After the failure of the N1 rocket and thus the Soviet lunar program, the Soviet space program was completely reorganized. While the lunar project was cancelled in February 1976, a new space station was authorized, the DOS-7/DOS-8 space station, which evolved into Mir, launched in 1986.
|
||||
While Aelita never flew, Aelita's sister spacecraft, the Gamma satellite, was complete and was launched in 1990. The Gamma project was a joint Soviet-French project.
|
||||
Aelita is known for being one of the longest projects on the drawing board, started in 1965 and ending in 1982, 17 years in planning.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
|
||||
Soyuz 7K
|
||||
Soyuz 9K
|
||||
Soyuz 7K-P
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
RSC Energia: Concept Of Russian Manned Space Navigation Development
|
||||
David S.F. Portree, Mir Hardware Heritage, NASA RP-1357, 1995
|
||||
Information on Soyuz spacecraft
|
||||
NASA - Russian Soyuz TMA Spacecraft Details Archived 24 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine
|
||||
Space Adventures circum-lunar mission - details
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_Concerning_Cooperation_in_the_Exploration_and_Use_of_Outer_Space_for_Peaceful_Purposes"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:35:19.478582+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:51.442809+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Astronaut's_Guide_to_Life_on_Earth"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:47.685022+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth: What Going to Space Taught Me About Ingenuity, Determination, and Being Prepared for Anything is a 2013 autobiography by Canadian retired astronaut and writer Chris Hadfield. It is Hadfield's debut book and was first published in October 2013 in the United States by Little, Brown and Company, and in the United Kingdom by Pan Macmillan. Hadfield has since written two more non-fiction books, and three novels.
|
||||
An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth won the 2014 CBA Libris Non-Fiction Book of the Year Award, and was a New York Times bestseller in December 2013.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Background ==
|
||||
Hadfield became a NASA astronaut in the early 1990s, and went on to become the first Canadian to perform a spacewalk in 2001 and command the International Space Station (ISS) in 2003. A good communicator, Hadfield garnered a following of nearly a million Twitter users when he posted images of Earth from the ISS and documented his experiences in space. In an interview with BBC News, Hadfield said, "Space was too good not to share it".
|
||||
Hadfield told Space.com that he considered writing this book around 2003, and made some notes of what he could include, but it was not until 2011 that be began working on it. Hadfield said he never intended for it to be an autobiography, but rather a rundown of some of the talks he had presented over the previous twenty one years. When An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth was published on October 29, 2013, Hadfield began a three-month book tour in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland to promote the release of his memoir.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Synopsis ==
|
||||
In An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth, Hadfield recounts how, when he was a nine-year-old boy living on a farm in rural Canada, he watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing and decided he wanted to be an astronaut. While in high school, Hadfield joined the Royal Canadian Air Cadets and obtained his pilot's license at the age of 16. After school he went to military college and trained to become a Canadian fighter pilot. He entered the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base in 1987 and graduated to a test pilot in 1988. In 1992, Hadfield became an astronaut for the Canadian Space Agency, and joined NASA at their Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas in the same year.
|
||||
Hadfield's first space flight was aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis in 1995, which docked with the Russian Space Station Mir. His first spacewalk was in 2001 when he flew to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour to install the ISS Canadarm2 robotic arm. In 2012 and 2013 Hadfield spent almost five months aboard the ISS, and became the space station's commander during the latter months. It was during this period that Hadfield used social media to share his experiences in space with hundreds of thousands of follows on Earth.
|
||||
In the autobiography Hadfield describes the daily activities in space, including exercising, eating, washing and visiting the bathroom. Work-related activities include space station maintenance, performing scheduled experiments, making observations, and attending to unscheduled problems that crop up from time to time. Hadfield emphasises the importance of attention to detail, and states, "every astronaut is essentially a perpetual student", and later, "our passion isn't for thrills but for the grindstone, and pressing our nose to it."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Critical reception ==
|
||||
Kirkus Reviews described An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth as a "page-turning memoir of life as a decorated astronaut". The reviewer stated that Hadfield's descriptions of his time in space are "lively", and called his "behind-the-scenes" glimpses of what means to be an astronaut, "satisfying" and "a useful corrective to the popular celebrity image."
|
||||
A reviewer in The New York Times called the memoir "part fascinating ... part Boy Scout manual." They said while Hadfield's charm on Twitter surfaces from time to time in the book, he stresses how important it is to be "focused less on the magical than the mundane". The reviewer commented that considering how "naturally thrilling" the book's subject is, "Mr. Hadfield makes an overly earnest tour guide".
|
||||
Writing in Nature, John Gilbey was "impress[ed]" by Hadfield's memoir and recommended it to secondary school students for "inspiration, motivation and a sense of belief in the future of humanity in space". Gilbey said this book deserves a place alongside those written by the Apollo 11 astronauts, and added, "I can think of no higher praise".
|
||||
In a review in The Wall Street Journal, Adam Savage, co-producer and co-host of MythBusters, found the book "fascinating" and "more enjoyable than I expected". He said it is both "autobiographical and instructional", and differs from "most 'success' books" in the way it highlights the importance of dwelling on trivial detail and what can go wrong in space flight. Savage noted that the book is "a very human glimpse into a rarefied world", and concluded:
|
||||
|
||||
"The vacuum of space is unforgiving and brutal. Life on earth isn't easy, either. Mr. Hadfield has genuinely and refreshingly increased our understanding of how to thrive in both places."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== TV adaptation ==
|
||||
Deadline announced in August 2014 that ABC, in association with Warner Bros. TV and 3 Arts Entertainment, has acquired the rights to a TV adaptation of Hadfield's book, An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth. Deadline stated that the script will be written by Justin Halpern and Patrick Schumacker, who will also executive produce with Erwin Stoff and Tom Lassally from 3 Arts. Hadfield will be the consulting producer. Deadline described the TV show as "a family comedy about an astronaut who is back from space and finds that re-entering domestic life might be the hardest mission he’s ever faced."
|
||||
Hadfield said in an interview in October 2014 that Warner Brothers contacted him soon after his memoir was published in 2013 about a possible adaptation. Hadfield and his wife met with Warner Brother and several US TV networks, and ABC elected to undertake the production. Hadfield said he began working with the writers to create a pilot, but added that he did not know who will be in the cast.
|
||||
As of April 2026 no further announcements have been made regarding the development or release of this TV series.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Notes ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Bibliography ==
|
||||
Hadfield, Chris (2013). An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-25301-7.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth at chrishadfield.ca
|
||||
14
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tutung-0.md
Normal file
14
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tutung-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Battle of Tutung"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tutung"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:39.948320+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Battle of Tutung (Chinese: 頭屯河戰役) of 1934 occurred when Gen. Ma Zhongying's Chinese Muslim 36th Division was attacked by the Soviet Red Army on the banks of the frozen Tutung River. The battle took place over several days, and Soviet bombers used mustard gas. At one point, the Chinese Muslim troops dressed up in sheepskins for camouflage in the snow, and stormed Soviet machine-gun posts with curved swords at a short range and defeated a Soviet pincer attack. Casualties were getting heavy on both sides before Ma Zhongying ordered a retreat.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booster_separation_motor-0.md
Normal file
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booster_separation_motor-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Booster separation motor"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booster_separation_motor"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:50.051678+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The booster separation motors or BSMs on the Space Shuttle were relatively small rocket motors that separated the reusable solid rocket boosters (SRB) from the orbiter after SRB burnout. Eight booster separation motors were attached to each of the shuttle's two reusable solid rocket boosters, four on the forward frustum and four on the aft skirt.
|
||||
About two minutes into a Space Shuttle flight, all 16 of these motors were fired simultaneously for 1.2 seconds, providing the precise thrust required to safely separate the spent boosters from the Space Shuttle's external tank and orbiter, while traveling more than 1,300 metres per second (2,900 mph) and an altitude of approximately 44 kilometres (27 mi).
|
||||
The booster separation motors were produced by ATK Launch Systems Group, part of Alliant Techsystems (ATK) Inc., at their facility in Brigham City, Utah. The Booster separation motors each weighed 167 pounds (76 kg) when loaded with propellant, and 90 pounds (41 kg) when empty. They were 31.1 inches (79 cm) long and 12.88 inches (32.7 cm) in diameter.
|
||||
Northrop Grumman is now manufacturing the booster separation motors for the Space Launch System Boosters, part of the NASA Space Launch System (SLS) for the Artemis program.
|
||||
For Ariane 5 and Ariane 6, a Norwegian-Finnish company Nammo manufactures similar but different booster separation motors.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Sources ==
|
||||
29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Band_X-ray_Telescope-0.md
Normal file
29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Band_X-ray_Telescope-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Broad Band X-ray Telescope"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Band_X-ray_Telescope"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:51.333582+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Broad Band X-ray Telescope (BBXRT) was flown on the Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-35) from December 2 through December 11, 1990 as part of the ASTRO-1 payload. The flight of BBXRT marked the first opportunity for performing X-ray observations over a broad energy range (0.3-12 keV) with a moderate energy resolution (typically 90 eV and 150 eV at 1 and 6 keV, respectively).
|
||||
BBXRT was co-mounted with three ultraviolet telescopes HUT, WUPPE, and HIT for Astro-1 in 1990.
|
||||
This was, "..the first focusing X-ray telescope operating over a broad energy range 0.3-12 keV with a moderate energy resolution (90 eV at 1 keV and 150eV at 6 keV)." according to NASA.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Hardware ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Spacelab
|
||||
X-ray astronomy
|
||||
List of X-ray space telescopes
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Broad Band X-ray Telescope (BBXRT. GSFC. NASA) on the internet
|
||||
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm-0.md
Normal file
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Canadarm"
|
||||
chunk: 1/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:52.556317+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Canadarm or Canadarm1 (officially Shuttle Remote Manipulator System or SRMS, also SSRMS) is a series of robotic arms that were used on the Space Shuttle orbiters to deploy, maneuver, and capture payloads. After the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the Canadarm was always paired with the Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS), which was used to inspect the exterior of the shuttle for damage to the thermal protection system.
|
||||
|
||||
== Development ==
|
||||
|
||||
In 1969, Canada was invited by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to participate in the Space Shuttle program. At the time what that participation would entail had not yet been decided but a manipulator system was identified as an important component. Canadian company DSMA ATCON had developed a robot to load fuel into CANDU nuclear reactors; this robot attracted NASA's attention. In 1975, NASA and the Canadian National Research Council (NRC) signed a memorandum of understanding that Canada would develop and construct the Canadarm.
|
||||
NRC awarded the manipulator contract to Spar Aerospace (now MDA). Three systems were constructed within this design, development, test, and evaluation contract: an engineering model to assist in the design and testing of the Canadarm, a qualification model that was subjected to environmental testing to qualify the design for use in space, and a flight unit.
|
||||
|
||||
=== End effector ===
|
||||
Anthony "Tony" Zubrzycki, a design engineer at DSMA ATCON, while seconded to SPAR, originated the concept for the Canadarm End Effector, inspired by an elastic band around his fingers. Zubrzycki formally presented this concept to NASA officials. Frank Mee, head of the SPAR mechanical development laboratory, built the end effector prototype based on Tony's concept and is credited by SPAR as the inventor of the Canadarm End Effector. The three-wire crossover design won over the claw-like mechanisms and others, such as the camera iris model, that were being considered.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Controls and software ===
|
||||
The main control algorithms were developed by SPAR and by subcontractor Dynacon Inc. of Toronto. CAE Electronics Ltd. in Montreal provided the display and control panel and the hand controllers located in the Shuttle aft flight deck. Other electronic interfaces, servo amplifiers, and power conditioners located on the Canadarm were designed and built by SPAR at its Montreal factory. The graphite composite boom that provides the structural connection between the shoulder and the elbow joint and the similar boom that connects the elbow to the wrist were produced by General Dynamics in the United States. Dilworth, Secord, Meagher and Associates, Ltd. in Toronto was contracted to produce the engineering model end effector then SPAR evolved the design and produced the qualification and flight units. The Space Shuttle flight software that monitors and controls the Canadarm was developed in Houston, Texas, by the Federal Systems Division of IBM. Rockwell International's Space Transportation Systems Division designed, developed, tested, and built the systems used to attach the Canadarm to the payload bay of the orbiter.
|
||||
An acceptance ceremony for NASA was held at Spar's RMS Division in Toronto on 11 February 1981. Here Larkin Kerwin, then the head of the NRC, gave the SRMS the informal name, Canadarm. The term was originally coined by Dr. Wally Cherwinski for use by Larkin Kerwin during his speech at the press conference. The NRC Canadarm Project Manager, Dr. Art Hunter, worked with colleagues, NASA and Spar, to add the Canadian flag and wordmark onto the arm to fly Canadian colours with those of the USA.
|
||||
The first Canadarm was delivered to NASA in April 1981. Astronaut Judith Resnik developed the NASA software and onboard operating procedures for the system. In all, five arms – Nos. 201, 202, 301, 302, and 303 – were built and delivered to NASA. Arm 302 was lost in the Challenger accident.
|
||||
|
||||
== Design and capabilities ==
|
||||
53
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm-1.md
Normal file
53
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Canadarm"
|
||||
chunk: 2/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadarm"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:52.556317+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The original Canadarm was capable of deploying payloads weighing up to 65,000 pounds (29,000 kg) in space. In the mid-1990s, the arm control system was redesigned to increase the payload capability to 586,000 pounds (266,000 kg) in order to support space station assembly operations. While able to maneuver payloads with the mass of a loaded bus in space, the arm motors cannot lift the arm's own weight when on the ground. NASA, therefore, developed a model of the arm for use at its training facility within the Johnson Space Center located in Houston, Texas. The Canadarm can also retrieve, repair and deploy satellites, provide a mobile extension ladder for extravehicular activity crew members for work stations or foot restraints, and be used as an inspection aid to allow the flight crew members to view the orbiter's or payload's surfaces through a television camera on the Canadarm.
|
||||
The basic Canadarm configuration consists of a manipulator arm, a Canadarm display, and a control panel, including rotational and translational hand controllers at the orbiter aft flight deck flight crew station, and a manipulator controller interface unit that interfaces with the orbiter computer. One crew member operates the Canadarm from the aft flight deck control station, and a second crew member usually assists with television camera operations. This allows the Canadarm operator to view Canadarm operations through the aft flight deck payload and overhead windows and through the closed-circuit television monitors at the aft flight deck station.
|
||||
The Canadarm is outfitted with an explosive-based mechanism to allow the arm to be jettisoned. This safety system would have allowed the Orbiter's payload bay doors to be closed in the event that the arm failed in an extended position and was not able to be retracted.
|
||||
The Canadarm is 15.2 metres (50 ft) long and 38 centimetres (15 in) diameter with six degrees of freedom. It weighs 410 kilograms (900 lb) by itself, and 450 kilograms (990 lb) as part of the total system. The Canadarm has six joints that correspond roughly to the joints of the human arm, with shoulder yaw and pitch joints, an elbow pitch joint, and wrist pitch, yaw, and roll joints. The end effector is the unit at the end of the wrist that grapples the payload's grapple fixture. The two lightweight boom segments are called the upper and lower arms. The upper boom connects the shoulder and elbow joints, and the lower boom connects the elbow and wrist joints.
|
||||
|
||||
== Service history ==
|
||||
|
||||
A simulated Canadarm installed on the Space Shuttle Enterprise was seen when the prototype orbiter's payload bay doors were open to test hangar facilities early in the Space Shuttle program. The Canadarm was first tested in orbit in 1981, on Space Shuttle Columbia's STS-2 mission. Its first operational use was on STS-3 to deploy and manoeuvre the Plasma Diagnostics Package. Canadarm subsequently flew on more than 90 missions with all five orbiters.
|
||||
Since the installation of the Canadarm2 on the International Space Station (ISS), the two arms have been used to hand over segments of the station for assembly from the orbiter's Canadarm to the Canadarm2; the use of both elements in tandem has earned the nickname of "Canadian Handshake" in the media.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Retirement ===
|
||||
The Canadarm's 90th and final Shuttle mission was in July 2011 on STS-135, delivering the Raffaello MPLM to the ISS and back. It is on display at Johnson space center in Texas Discovery's Canadarm is displayed next to it in the National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center. Endeavour left its OBSS at the International Space Station as part of its final mission, while its Canadarm was originally going to be displayed in the headquarters of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). However, Endeavour's Canadarm is now on permanent display at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa. The last of the Canadarms to fly in space, the SRMS flown aboard Atlantis on STS-135 in July 2011, was shipped to NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston for engineering study and possible reuse on a future mission.
|
||||
|
||||
== Derivatives ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Canadarm2 ===
|
||||
|
||||
Based on the Canadarm1, the larger Canadarm2 is used for berthing the trusses, berthing the commercial vehicles, and inspecting the whole International Space Station.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Canadarm3 ===
|
||||
|
||||
The smaller Canadarm3 was planned to be used for berthing the modules, performing maintenance or repairs and inspecting the Lunar Gateway. In June 2024, the full contract for design and construction of the arm was awarded to MDA Space. On May 2, 2025, the project was canceled as a result of the second Trump administration's FY26 budget proposal, which resulted in the termination of the Lunar Gateway Program.
|
||||
|
||||
== In popular media ==
|
||||
On November 13, 2012, Google Canada displayed a doodle on its home search page to celebrate the 31st anniversary of the Canadarm's first use in space.
|
||||
Starting November 7, 2013, Canadarm2 was included on the back of the Canadian five dollar note.
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
|
||||
List of Canadian inventions and discoveries
|
||||
Dextre – Robotic arm on ISS
|
||||
European Robotic Arm – Robotic arm installed on the ISS Russian Segment
|
||||
Kibo (ISS module) § Remote Manipulator System
|
||||
Mobile Servicing System – Robotic system on board the International Space Station
|
||||
Strela – Russian crane on the International Space Station
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
NASA:RMS: PAYLOAD DEPLOYMENT AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM Archived 31 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine
|
||||
Canadian Space Agency : Canadarm
|
||||
CBC Digital Archives - Canadarm - A Technology Star
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Canceled Space Shuttle missions"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canceled_Space_Shuttle_missions"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:53.896602+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
During NASA's Space Shuttle program, several missions were canceled. Many were canceled as a result of the Challenger and the Columbia disasters or due to delays in the development of the shuttle. Others were canceled because of changes in payload and mission requirements.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Canceled due to the late development of the Space Shuttle ==
|
||||
In 1972, NASA's planners had projected 570 Space Shuttle missions between 1980 and 1991. Later, this estimate was lowered to 487 launches between 1980 and 1992. The details of the first 23 projected missions, listed in the third edition of Manned Spaceflight (Reginald Turnill, 1978) and the first edition of the STS Flight Assignment Baseline, an internal NASA document published in October 1977, are:
|
||||
|
||||
Later in the development process, NASA suggested using the first crewed Space Shuttle mission, STS-1, as a sub-orbital test of the Return to Launch Site (RTLS) flight profile devised for an emergency abort. Columbia would have launched from Kennedy Space Center, then executed a 180-degree turn at a speed of 8,400 kilometres per hour (5,200 mph), or 6.7 times the speed of sound, in order to land at the Kennedy Space Center runway. The mission was canceled when astronauts refused to fly it, having deemed the plan to be too dangerous. STS-1 commander John W. Young recalled that "I said no. I said let's not practice Russian roulette, because you may have a loaded gun there. So we didn't."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Canceled between the first flight of the Space Shuttle (1981) and the Challenger disaster (1986) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Canceled due to the Challenger disaster ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Canceled between 1988 and the Columbia disaster (2003) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Canceled due to the Columbia disaster ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Challenger Center for Space Science Education"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_Center_for_Space_Science_Education"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:56.434141+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Challenger Center for Space Science Education is a United States 501(c)(3) non-profit organization headquartered in Washington, DC. It was founded in 1986 by the families of the astronauts who died in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986.
|
||||
The organization's mission is to inspire and educate students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) through hands-on, immersive learning experiences that simulate space missions.
|
||||
Challenger Learning Centers give students the chance to become astronauts and engineers and solve real-world problems as they participate in missions through the Solar System. Using space simulation and role-playing strategies, students bring their classroom studies to life.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== United States ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
Challenger Center was established in the aftermath of the Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986, when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded during its launch, killing all seven crew members. The families of the crew members, including Christa McAuliffe, who was a teacher and the first private citizen selected to fly in space, founded the organization as a living tribute to the crew and to continue their commitment to education. Their goal was to create a living memorial for the crew and to inspire future generations to pursue careers in STEM fields.
|
||||
The first Challenger Learning Center opened in Houston, Texas, in 1988. Since then, the organization has grown to include over 30 Challenger Learning Centers across the United States, Canada, and several other countries. In addition to the centers, Challenger Center also offers educational programs for schools and teachers, as well as online resources for students.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Missions and programs ==
|
||||
Challenger Center's programs are designed to engage students in immersive learning experiences that simulate space missions. These experiences incorporate STEM education concepts, teamwork, problem-solving, critical thinking, and communication skills. Programs are designed for students in grades K-12, as well as for college and adult learners.
|
||||
Challenger Center's flagship program is the Challenger Learning Center Mission Simulation, a two-hour simulated space mission that places students in roles such as mission commander, navigator, medical officer, and engineer. Students work together to complete a space mission, solve problems, and overcome challenges. The mission simulations are supported by curriculum resources and professional development for educators.
|
||||
Challenger Center also offers e-Mission simulations, which allow students to participate in space missions virtually, using video conferencing and online resources. In addition, the organization provides teacher professional development programs, student summer camps, and community outreach initiatives.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Impact ==
|
||||
Since its founding, Challenger Center has impacted more than 6 million students and 250,000 educators worldwide. The organization's immersive learning experiences have been shown to increase students' interest in STEM subjects and improve their critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
|
||||
Challenger Center has also received numerous awards and accolades for its work in STEM education. In 2017, the organization received the National Science Board's Public Service Award in recognition of its contributions to STEM education and has been recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as a model for science education.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== International ==
|
||||
Challenger Learning Center at the Ontario Science Center (Toronto, Canada)
|
||||
Challenger Learning Center at SongAm Space Center (Gyeonggi-do, South Korea)
|
||||
Challenger Learning Center at the National Space Centre (Leicester, United Kingdom)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Board of directors ==
|
||||
Notable members of the Board of Directors include:
|
||||
|
||||
Charles Resnik MD - Brother of Judith Resnik
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Governance and funding ==
|
||||
Challenger Center is governed by a board of directors, which includes family members of the Challenger crew and business leaders. The organization is funded through a combination of private donations, corporate partnerships, and grants from government agencies.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Official website
|
||||
Teacher resources
|
||||
Challenger Center for Space Science Education's channel on YouTube
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_C._Kraft_Jr._Mission_Control_Center"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:50:58.409108+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:25.784341+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_C._Kraft_Jr._Mission_Control_Center"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:50:58.409108+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:25.784341+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_C._Kraft_Jr._Mission_Control_Center"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:50:58.409108+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:25.784341+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_C._Kraft_Jr._Mission_Control_Center"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:50:58.409108+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:25.784341+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
55
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroy_Virtus-0.md
Normal file
55
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroy_Virtus-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Conroy Virtus"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conroy_Virtus"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:57.624613+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Conroy Virtus was a proposed American large transport aircraft intended to carry the Space Shuttle. Designed, beginning in 1974, by John M. Conroy of the Turbo-Three Corporation, it was to incorporate a pair of Boeing B-52 Stratofortress fuselages to form a new craft using existing parts for cost-savings. While the project was seriously considered, it proved impractically large and NASA chose to develop the Boeing 747–based Shuttle Carrier from surplus commercial aircraft instead.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
The Space Shuttle was originally designed to use on-board turbofan engines for propulsion within the atmosphere on re-entry and for ferry flights between landing sites, such as Edwards Air Force Base, the White Sands Missile Range or contingency landing sites such as Easter Island, to the launch site at Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral. When the air-breathing engines were deleted from the Shuttle design due to cost and weight concerns, a requirement arose for a transport aircraft capable of carrying the Shuttle from landing sites back to the Kennedy Space Center. One early design for a shuttle carrier aircraft was proposed by John M. Conroy, developer of the Pregnant Guppy and Super Guppy oversized cargo aircraft, in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Center; named Virtus, a contract was issued for design and development work in 1974.
|
||||
Expected to cost US$12.5 million each (equivalent to $61.7 million in 2024), Virtus was a twin-fuselage design powered by four large jet engines; it was intended for these to be Pratt & Whitney JT9D turbofans. Conroy proposed extensive use of 'off the shelf' military parts in the design to reduce costs; this included the use of fuselages from Boeing B-52 Stratofortress strategic bombers to form the aircraft's main fuselage pods, added to a new wing and tail section. The Space Shuttle Orbiter would be carried under the center section of the Virtus aircraft's wing, between the fuselages; other large cargoes, including the Space Shuttle external tank, the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, or dedicated cargo pods, could be alternatively carried.
|
||||
The Virtus design was tested in the NASA Langley wind tunnel; while the results of the wind tunnel tests were considered promising, the drawbacks of such a large design, including the cost of developing an entirely new aircraft, flight testing the design and the sheer size of the aircraft requiring the development and/or expansion of infrastructure to support it, militated against further development of Virtus. The Lockheed Corporation, which had proposed a twin-fuselage version of its C-5 Galaxy airlifter to carry the Shuttle, also saw its proposal rejected for the same reasons. A more modest conversion of existing C-5s was proposed and nearly taken up by NASA but it was determined that having aircraft continually available was preferable to being restricted by the United States Air Force on the use of C-5s and a proposal by Boeing for a conversion of the 747 airliner was selected, becoming the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. A proposed commercial version of the Virtus design, named Colossus, also failed to gain any further interest, and the Virtus design was abandoned.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Specifications ==
|
||||
Data from Lowther 2012General characteristics
|
||||
Wingspan: 450 ft (140 m)
|
||||
Wing area: 22,166 sq ft (2,059.3 m2)
|
||||
Aspect ratio: 9
|
||||
Max takeoff weight: 850,000 lb (385,554 kg)
|
||||
Powerplant: 4 × Pratt & Whitney JT9D-3A high-bypass turbofans, 45,800 lbf (204 kN) thrust each
|
||||
Performance
|
||||
|
||||
Cruise speed: 300 mph (480 km/h, 260 kn)
|
||||
Range: 3,000 mi (4,800 km, 2,600 nmi)
|
||||
Service ceiling: 35,000 ft (11,000 m)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
|
||||
Antonov An-225 Mriya
|
||||
Scaled Composites Stratolaunch
|
||||
C-5 Shuttle Carrier
|
||||
Related development
|
||||
|
||||
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
|
||||
Aircraft of comparable role, configuration, and era
|
||||
|
||||
Myasishchev VM-T
|
||||
Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Bibliography ===
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Conroy, John M. (February 28, 1974). "Feasibility Study to Consider an Aircraft for the Launch and Air Transportation of the Space Shuttle Orbiter" (PDF). Turbo-Three Corporation.
|
||||
54
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter-0.md
Normal file
54
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Crawler-transporter"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-transporter"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:58.842585+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The crawler-transporters, formally known as the Missile Crawler Transporter Facilities, are a pair of tracked vehicles used to transport launch vehicles from NASA's Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) along the Crawlerway to Launch Complex 39. They were originally used to transport the Saturn IB and Saturn V rockets during the Apollo, Skylab and Apollo–Soyuz programs. They were then used to transport Space Shuttles from 1981 to 2011. The crawler-transporters carry vehicles on the mobile launcher platforms (MLPs) used by NASA, and after each launch return to the pad to take the platform back to the VAB.
|
||||
The two crawler-transporters were designed and built by Marion Power Shovel Company using some components designed and built by Rockwell International at a cost of US$14 million (equivalent to $143 million in 2025) each. Upon its construction, the crawler-transporter became the largest self-powered land vehicle in the world. While other vehicles such as bucket-wheel excavators like Bagger 288, dragline excavators like Big Muskie and power shovels like The Captain are significantly larger, they are powered by external sources.
|
||||
The two crawler-transporters were added to the National Register of Historic Places on January 21, 2000.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Specifications ==
|
||||
|
||||
The crawler-transporter has a mass of 2,721 tonnes (6 million pounds; 2,999 short tons) and has eight tracks, two on each corner. Each track has 57 shoes, and each shoe weighs 998 kg (2,200 lb). The vehicle measures 40 by 35 meters (131 by 114 ft). The height from ground level to the platform is adjustable from 6.1 to 7.9 m (20 to 26 ft), and each side can be raised and lowered independently of the other. The crawler uses a laser guidance system and a leveling system to keep the Mobile Launcher Platform level within 10 minutes of arc (0.16 degrees; about 30 cm (1 ft) at the top of the Saturn V), while moving up the 5 percent grade to the launch site. A separate laser docking system provides pinpoint accuracy when the crawler-transporter and Mobile Launch Platform are positioned in the VAB or at the launch pad. A team of nearly 30 engineers, technicians and drivers operate the vehicle, centered on an internal control room, and the crawler is driven from two control cabs located at either end. Before the launch the crawler-transporter is removed.
|
||||
The crawlers were overhauled in 2003 with upgrades to the Motor Control Center, which houses the switchgear and electrical controls of all of major systems on board; a new engine and pump ventilation system; new diesel engine radiators; and replacement of the two driver cabs on each vehicle (one on each end). After the 2003 refit, each crawler had 16 traction motors, powered by four 1,000 kW (1,341 hp) generators, in turn driven by two 2,050 kW (2,750 hp) V16 ALCO 251C diesel engines. Two 750 kW (1,006 hp) generators, driven by two 794 kW (1,065 hp) engines, were used for jacking, steering, lighting, and ventilating. Two 150 kW (201 hp) generators were also available to power the Mobile Launcher Platform. The crawler's tanks held 19,000 liters (5,000 U.S. gal) of diesel fuel, and it burned 296 liters per kilometer (125.7 U.S. gal/mi).
|
||||
Due to their age and the need to support the heavier Space Launch System and its launch tower, in 2012–2014 the crawlers were undergoing an upgrade involving "new engines, new exhausts, new brakes, new hydraulics, new computers"; CT-2 was further upgraded in 2014–2016 to increase its lifting capacity from 5,400 to 8,200 tonnes (12 to 18 million pounds).
|
||||
The crawlers traveled along the 5.5 and 6.8 km (3.4 and 4.2 mi) Crawlerways, to LC-39A and LC-39B, respectively, at a maximum speed of 1.6 kilometers per hour (1 mph) loaded, or 3.2 km/h (2 mph) unloaded. The average trip time from the VAB along the Crawlerway to Launch Complex 39 is about five hours. Each Crawlerway is 2 m (7 ft) deep and covered with Alabama and Tennessee river rock for its low friction properties to reduce the possibility of sparks. In 2000, NASA unearthed and restored an Apollo-era segment of the Crawlerway to provide access to High Bay 2 in the VAB in order to provide protection from a hurricane for up to three Shuttles at the same time.
|
||||
Kennedy Space Center has been using the same two crawlers since their initial delivery in 1965. They are now nicknamed "Hans and Franz", after the parodic Austrian bodybuilder characters on Saturday Night Live, played by Dana Carvey and Kevin Nealon. In their lifetime, they have traveled more than 5,500 km (3,400 mi), about the same driving distance as from Miami to Seattle.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Future use ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Crawler-Transporter 2 ===
|
||||
|
||||
NASA currently uses crawler-transporter 2 to transport the Space Launch System with the Orion spacecraft atop it from the Vehicle Assembly Building to Launch Pad 39B for the Artemis missions. Early in 2016, NASA finished upgrading crawler-transporter 2 (CT-2) to a "Super Crawler" for use in the Artemis program. NASA performed a rollout of the Artemis 1 Space Launch System and Orion on March 17, 2022, for the first Wet Dress Rehearsal, and the rollout for launch, which launched in November 2022. The rollout for the WDR, marked the first time one of the crawler transporters rolled a launch vehicle to the launch pad since STS-135.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Crawler-Transporter 1 ===
|
||||
NASA had originally planned for crawler-transporter 1 to be used by commercial launch vehicles. In April 2016, then Orbital ATK, now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems, and NASA entered negotiations for the lease of CT-1 and one of the four Vehicle Assembly Building bays. Northrop Grumman planned to use CT-1 to transport their Omega from the Vehicle Assembly Building to Launch Pad 39B. Omega was cancelled in September 2020 after Northrop Grumman lost the National Security Space Launch contract to United Launch Alliance and SpaceX.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Appearances in popular culture ==
|
||||
The crawler-transporters have featured in television and movies. In a 2007 season three episode of Dirty Jobs, host Mike Rowe helps workers maintain a crawler-transporter and takes the vehicle for a short drive. The crawler was also seen in the 1995 film Apollo 13, the 2011 film Transformers: Dark of the Moon and the 2019 film Apollo 11. Similar vehicles also appeared in the 2013 film Pacific Rim.
|
||||
In the 2009 Fallout 3 video game add-on pack "Broken Steel", the US government survivors, The Enclave, have a mobile base built on and into a heavily modified crawler. In Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, various units are called "crawlers" and feature chassis based on the crawler-transporters. In Asphalt 8: Airborne, three crawler-transporters drive over the space center French Guiana track, despite the fact the actual space center of French Guiana doesn't use similar vehicles
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Gallery ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of largest machines
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
28.58808°N 80.65521°W / 28.58808; -80.65521 - Crawler-transporter parking area at Kennedy Space Center
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawlerway"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:33:23.913657+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:00.107731+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:21:40.993895+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:01.403249+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:21:40.993895+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:01.403249+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:21:40.993895+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:01.403249+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T06:21:40.993895+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:01.403249+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Department of Defense Manned Space Flight Support Office"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defense_Manned_Space_Flight_Support_Office"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:02.590807+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Department of Defense Manned Space Flight Support Office (DDMS) coordinated all United States Department of Defense (DoD) contingency support to NASA's human spaceflight programs. The office was deactivated in 2007 and replaced by a staff element that is part of the United States Space Force's 45th Space Wing staff at Patrick Space Force Base in Florida.
|
||||
The commander of U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) was the DoD Manager for Manned Space Flight Support Operations.
|
||||
The 45th Space Wing commander at Patrick Space Force Base, Florida, was the Deputy DoD Manager. The DDMS offices and staff were located at Patrick SFB and were responsible for the day-to-day operations and support to NASA's human spaceflights. Additionally, DDMS maintained a Landing Support Office at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
Chartered in 1958 by the Secretary of Defense, DDMS was originally formed with the express purpose of providing much-needed DoD support to the U.S. initial crewed space flight effort ... putting people into space and returning them safely to Earth. Since then, the support office continued to be the focal point for all DoD contingency support to Project Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Apollo/Soyuz Test Project and Space Shuttle. This support included astronaut and space capsule recovery, worldwide communications, tracking and data relay, public affairs, and medical support.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Responsibilities ==
|
||||
In the Space Shuttle program, DDMS had the responsibility for astronaut rescue and recovery, contingency landing site support, payload security, medical support, coordination of airlift/sealift for contingency operations, as well as other support services required in the event of a Shuttle emergency. To carry out these responsibilities, DDMS would receive and validate NASA requests for DoD support. The support office would then select assets best able to provide the required support, task selected units through appropriate command channels, and provide tactical control of those DoD forces supporting a specific Space Shuttle mission.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Assets ===
|
||||
In the Kennedy Space Center area, U.S. Air Force air-refuelable HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters, HC-130 tanker aircraft, pararescue and medical personnel, and U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships are deployed to support launch contingencies and astronaut recovery. Additionally, the Navy provided a KC-130 tanker for helicopter air refueling, E-2C aircraft for enhanced air traffic control and P-3 Orion aircraft for search and rescue operations in the mid-Atlantic region. To support the potential for a Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL), NASA selected four TAL sites in Spain and Africa. These sites were Morón and Zaragoza Air Bases in Spain; Ben Guerir Air Base, Morocco; and Yundum International Airport, Banjul, The Gambia. Three of these four TAL sites were activated for each shuttle launch. DDMS supported these TAL sites with C-12 or C-21 aircraft for on-scene weather reconnaissance and in-flight checks of Space Shuttle unique landing aids; C-130 aircraft with pararescue and medical support personnel; and DoD fire/crash/rescue equipment and personnel.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Operations ===
|
||||
DDMS would operate the DoD Support Operations Center at Patrick SFB starting the day prior to a Space Shuttle launch and continuing through landing. Crewed by DDMS staff officers, the Support Operations Center would maintain 24-hour contact with those DoD forces and facilities around the world supporting each mission. The center was the DoD focal point for managing a contingency response in the event of a Shuttle emergency landing or astronaut bail out. The center, for example, played a key role in providing support to NASA in response to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Responsibilities in orbit ===
|
||||
While a Space Shuttle orbiter was on orbit, designated DoD sites worldwide were ready to support a Shuttle contingency landing. The center would receive status reports from these locations during mission support periods. On landing day, the Support Operations Center would coordinate the DoD fire/crash/rescue support and medevac helicopters at Kennedy Space Center, Edwards Air Force Base, and Holloman Air Force Base.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Post-landing support ===
|
||||
After landing at locations other than Kennedy Space Center, the Space Shuttle orbiter was ferried back to Florida on a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft. DDMS coordinates a U.S. Air Force C-141 "Pathfinder" aircraft to transport NASA personnel and equipment supporting ferry flight operations. The office personnel flew with the NASA team on these ferry flights, providing specialized support en route at DoD installation stops. Due to the unique weather sensitivities of ferry flights, a dedicated weather support team was also assembled to monitor en route weather. This included a DoD meteorologist to monitor weather conditions from the Cape Canaveral Forecast Facility in Florida, as well as a DoD meteorologist who traveled with the ferry flight team, providing direct en route weather support.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Commanders ===
|
||||
Lt Col David Mahan
|
||||
Lt Col Nick Pettit
|
||||
Lt Col Richard Bolton
|
||||
Lt Col Michael Thompson
|
||||
Lt Col Jason Havel
|
||||
Lt Col Michael McClure
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
US Strategic Command Fact Sheet (current as of March 2004)
|
||||
42
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EASE/ACCESS-0.md
Normal file
42
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EASE/ACCESS-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "EASE/ACCESS"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EASE/ACCESS"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:05.093730+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and the Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures, or EASE/ACCESS, were a pair of space shuttle flight experiments that were performed on STS-61-B, on November 29 and December 1, 1985. The purpose of the experiments was to study how quickly astronauts would become proficient at assembling space structures during extravehicular activity, and how quickly they would become fatigued, and to explore various construction and maintenance techniques. In particular, researchers studied the applied moments of inertia arising in the manual assembly of a large space structure.
|
||||
EASE was a project of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and the Space Systems Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (later at the University of Maryland), while ACCESS was developed by NASA's Langley Research Center.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Experiment and EVAs ==
|
||||
Astronauts Jerry L. Ross and Sherwood C. Spring repeatedly assembled a 3.7-meter (12 ft) tetrahedral truss (EASE) and a triangular column truss (ACCESS) during two extra-vehicular activities (EVAs). The first EVA was devoted to studying human performance in assembly techniques, while the second was dedicated to supplementary experiments, including alternative construction techniques and maintenance scenarios.
|
||||
The EASE structure consisted of six identical aluminum beams, each 12 feet (3.7 m) long and with a mass of 64 pounds (29 kg), connected by four nodal joints. ACCESS consisted of 93 tubular aluminum struts, each 1-inch (25 mm) in diameter—thirty-three 4.5 feet (1.4 m) struts, and sixty 6 feet (1.8 m) struts—connected by thirty-three nodal joints. While assembling the EASE structure, the astronauts moved about the structure under their own power. For the assembly of the ACCESS structure, the astronauts were secured to a mobile platform on the Remote Manipulator System, which was guided by astronaut Mary L. Cleave.
|
||||
A stereoscopic camera system recorded the movements of the structural beams during assembly. Taking into account the effects of inertia, drag, and virtual mass, researchers used this data to reconstruct the applied moments of inertia. The structure was also assembled in neutral buoyancy simulation, and the two environments were compared. The EVAs were also recorded by an IMAX camera mounted in the shuttle cargo bay.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Results ==
|
||||
|
||||
Applied moments of inertia during EVA were found to be on the order of 2.0 newton-meters (1.5 lbf⋅ft). In neutral buoyancy simulation, the applied moments of inertia were around five times greater than those during EVA. Assembly time during EVA was around 20% less than in neutral buoyancy simulation. The learning curve was on the order of 78%, and was unaffected by the strength, coordination, or size of the astronaut, or the fit of the space suit. In both environments, moments of inertia were applied as short impulses, interspersed by several seconds of coasting.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Conclusion ==
|
||||
The EASE/ACCESS experiments were deemed to be successful. The information gathered provided a basis for planning future manually assembled space structures, and in the process NASA accrued valuable EVA assembly experience. The team responsible for the EASE project was awarded a NASA Group Achievement Award.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
|
||||
List of spacewalks and moonwalks 1965–1999
|
||||
Space Shuttle program
|
||||
Human factors
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Media related to EASE/ACCESS at Wikimedia Commons
|
||||
NASA Oral History Project - Bryan D. O'Connor (PDF)
|
||||
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educator_Astronaut_Project-0.md
Normal file
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educator_Astronaut_Project-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Educator Astronaut Project"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educator_Astronaut_Project"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:06.334233+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Educator Astronaut Project is a NASA program to educate students and spur interest in science, technology, engineering, math, and space exploration. It is a successor to the Teacher in Space Project of the 1980s, which NASA cancelled after the death of teacher-astronaut Christa McAuliffe in the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster (STS-51-L) amid concerns about the risk of sending civilians into space.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
|
||||
In the 1990s, NASA created the Educator Astronaut Project, which carries on the objectives of the Teacher in Space Program—seeking to elevate teaching as a profession and inspire students. Unlike the Teacher in Space Program, educator astronauts are fully trained astronauts who do the same jobs and duties that any other astronaut does. They fly as crew members with critical mission responsibilities, as well as education-related goals. In addition to their technical assignments, they assist other astronauts in connecting to students and teachers through space exploration.
|
||||
Joseph M. Acaba, Richard R. Arnold and Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger were selected as the first educator mission specialists in the 2004 class. Both Acaba and Arnold were part of the crew of STS-119, a Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station (ISS) which was flown by Space Shuttle Discovery in March 2009. Metcalf-Lindenburger flew on STS-131 in April 2010, also visiting the ISS aboard Space Shuttle Discovery.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Barbara Morgan ==
|
||||
Barbara Morgan, the backup to Christa McAuliffe in the Teacher in Space Project, remained involved with NASA after the Challenger disaster and continued to work with NASA's Education Division until her selection as a mission specialist in 1998. Morgan completed two years of astronaut training and evaluation, and began official duties in 2000. Morgan became the first former teacher to travel to space on STS-118. While NASA press releases and media briefings often referred to her as a "mission specialist educator" or "educator astronaut", Morgan did not train in the Educator Astronaut Project. NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin clarified at a press conference after STS-118 that Morgan was not considered a mission specialist educator, but rather was a standard mission specialist, who had once been a teacher. Morgan's duties as a mission specialist were no different from other Shuttle mission specialists.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
0
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance
Normal file
0
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance
Normal file
53
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Duration_Orbiter-0.md
Normal file
53
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Duration_Orbiter-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Extended Duration Orbiter"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Duration_Orbiter"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:08.754675+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) program was a project by NASA to prepare for long-term (months) microgravity research aboard Space Station Freedom, which later evolved into the International Space Station. Scientists and NASA needed practical experience in managing progressively longer times for their experiments. The original Space Shuttle configuration usually provided a week to ten days of spaceflight. Several research projects and hardware components were part of the project, of which the EDO-pallet was one of the most visible, contracted by Rockwell International.
|
||||
The first orbiter outfitted with the EDO hardware configuration was Endeavour, during its construction, and its last EDO flight was STS-67, in 1995. Endeavour's EDO modifications were removed in 1996 as part of routine maintenance, to reduce the orbiter's weight prior to STS-89. Columbia was outfitted for EDO flight during its maintenance period from August 10, 1991, through February 9, 1992, prior to STS-50, which was the first EDO flight. From 1992, through 1994, Atlantis went through a maintenance period, during which Atlantis was modified to have the provisions needed for EDO capability, but NASA chose not to proceed with the final modifications, and Atlantis never had EDO capability. The EDO-pallet used in these orbiter configurations was destroyed in the 2003 Columbia disaster.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== EDO Pallet ==
|
||||
|
||||
The Extended Duration Orbiter Cryogenic kit (EDO-pallet or CRYO) was a 15-foot-diameter (4.6 m) equipment assembly which attached vertically to the payload bay rear bulkhead of an orbiter, and allowed the orbiter to support a flight of up to 16 days duration. The equipment included cryogenic tanks, associated control panels, and avionics equipment. Although Atlantis was partially upgraded to accommodate the EDO, only Columbia and Endeavour actually flew with the pallet. The pallet made its debut on STS-50, and was lost on STS-107 in 2003.
|
||||
Initially, NASA considered adding a second EDO pallet to Endeavour, placed in front of the first, for a total of thirteen tank sets, that would have allowed an orbiter to remain in space for 28 days, but managers decided against it when the International Space Station assembly began, and instead removed the EDO capability from the orbiter, to reduce its weight and allow it to carry more cargo to the ISS.
|
||||
No replacement for the pallet was planned, since the Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System provided much of the same abilities, and the 2011 retirement of the shuttle fleet made it unnecessary.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Specifications ===
|
||||
The EDO tanks stored 368 pounds (167 kg) of liquid hydrogen at −418 degrees Fahrenheit (−250.0 °C), and 3,124 pounds (1,417 kg) of liquid oxygen at −285 degrees Fahrenheit (−176.1 °C). Total empty weight of the system was 3,571 pounds (1,620 kg). When filled with cryogens, the system weight was approximately 7,000 pounds (3.2 t).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Use ===
|
||||
The EDO pallet was designed to augment the orbiter's endurance for prolonged missions by supplying additional hydrogen and oxygen for its fuel cells. These fuel cells, in turn, converted hydrogen and oxygen into electrical energy essential for the orbiter's operations. For instance, during STS-80, 5,856 kWh was produced from 3,989 lb of oxygen and 502 lb of hydrogen. For STS-50, 6,204.7 kWh was generated from 4,367 lb of oxygen and 550 lb of hydrogen. In comparison, STS-77, a mission without the EDO pallet, yielded 3,924 kWh from 2,745 lb of oxygen and 346 lb of hydrogen.
|
||||
Another byproduct of the fuel cell operation was potable water. STS-77 produced 3,091 lb, while missions utilizing the EDO pallet, such as STS-50 and STS-80, yielded 4,914.6 lb and 4,492 lb, respectively.
|
||||
Missions incorporating the EDO pallet provided extended opportunities for scientific research. They enabled detailed studies in areas like microgravity, life sciences, terrestrial observations, and astronomical observations. They also facilitated an understanding of human adaptability in reduced gravity conditions.
|
||||
The following missions used the EDO pallet:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== EDO medical project ==
|
||||
Prior to the EDO project, no shuttle had flown a mission longer than 10 days. Since space travelers may faint when they stand up (orthostatic intolerance) after returning to normal gravity even after short flights, and muscle strength may be reduced, the EDOMP project focused on ensuring that the crew could land the orbiter, and exit from it without help after a 16-day flight. Astronauts on 40 shuttle flights (STS-32 through STS-72) participated in 36 EDOMP investigations. The results of these investigations were used to make rules and recommendations for 16-day flights. Several types of exercise devices (i.e. a treadmill, a cycle ergometer, and a rower) were among the devices and procedures developed to prevent the de-conditioning of the body that occurs during space flight. The crew transport vehicles, in which astronauts were transported after landing, were built to enhance medical capabilities at the landing site, as well as crew comfort and safety. A database of 125 formal publications, and 299 abstracts, technical papers, and presentations, also resulted from the EDOMP. The project saw its successor in the ISS Medical Project.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Other EDO projects and studies ==
|
||||
Manual Apparel Cleaning System - A system for laundering selected items of clothing.
|
||||
An automated Fault Detection, Isolation, and Reconfiguration-system (FDIR) that would support the shuttles for up to 28 days.
|
||||
Extended Duration Orbiter Waste Collection System. A similar system was later added to ISS as the ISS Waste Collector Subsystem.
|
||||
Extended Duration Orbiter Regenerable CO2 Removal System.
|
||||
Medical Extended Medical Enterprise (MEME).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of Space Shuttle missions
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
"Extended Duration Missions". NASA.
|
||||
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foton_(satellite)-0.md
Normal file
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foton_(satellite)-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Foton (satellite)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foton_(satellite)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:52.688967+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Foton (or Photon) is the project name of two series of Russian science satellite and reentry vehicle programs. Although uncrewed, the design was adapted from the crewed Vostok spacecraft capsule. The primary focus of the Foton project is materials science research, but some missions have also carried experiments for other fields of research including biology. The original Foton series included 12 launches from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome from 1985 to 1999.
|
||||
The second series, under the name Foton-M, incorporates many design improvements over the original Foton, and is still in use. So far, there have been four launch attempts of the Foton-M. The first was in 2002 from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, which ended in failure due to a problem in the launch vehicle. The last three were from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, in 2005, 2007, and 2014; all were successful. Both the Foton and Foton-M series used Soyuz-U (11A511U and 11A511U2) rockets as launch vehicles. Starting with the Foton-7 mission, the European Space Agency has been a partner in the Foton program.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Foton-M ==
|
||||
Foton-M is a new generation of Russian robotic spacecraft for research conducted in the microgravity environment of Earth orbit. The Foton-M design is based on the design of the Foton, with several improvements including a new telemetry and telecommand unit for increased data flow rate, increased battery capacity, and a better thermal control system. It is produced by TsSKB-Progress in Samara.
|
||||
The launch of Foton-M1 failed because of a malfunction of the Soyuz-U launcher. The second launch (of Foton-M2) was a success. Foton-M3 was launched on 14 September 2007, carried by a Soyuz-U rocket lifting off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan with Nadezhda, a cockroach that conceived in space and produced 33 offspring after the spacecraft returned successfully to Earth on 26 September 2007, landing in Kazakhstan at 7:58 GMT.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reentry ==
|
||||
The Foton capsule has limited thruster capability. As such, the reentry path and orientation can not be controlled after the capsule has separated from the engine system. This means that the capsule has to be protected from reentry heat on all sides, thus explaining the spherical design (as opposed to Project Mercury's conical design), which allows for maximum volume while minimizing the external surface. However, the lack of lift means the capsule experiences high forces on reentry, up to 8 to 9g.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Foton launches ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Biosatellite
|
||||
Bion
|
||||
BIOPAN
|
||||
Animals in space
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Foton (from Encyclopedia Astronautica)
|
||||
Russian Space Web
|
||||
58
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freestar_experiment-0.md
Normal file
58
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freestar_experiment-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Freestar experiment"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freestar_experiment"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:12.371367+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
FREESTAR, which stands for Fast Reaction Experiments Enabling Science Technology Applications and Research, was a payload of six separate experiments on the Space Shuttle Columbia.
|
||||
It was mounted on a crossbay Hitchhiker Multipurpose Equipment Support Structure in the Shuttle's payload bay during the STS-107 flight, which ended with the disintegration of Columbia during re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. Although data was lost in the re-entry, much of the data collected while in space, such as that from MEIDEX, had already been transmitted to ground stations.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Experiments ==
|
||||
The six experiments were:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Mediterranean Israeli Dust Experiment (MEIDEX) ===
|
||||
|
||||
The primary mission of the MEIDEX payload was to study the temporal and spatial distribution and physical properties of atmospheric desert dust over North Africa, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Saharan regions. The aim was achieved by a remote sensing experiment operated by the astronauts aboard the shuttle. Also, MEIDEX accomplished diverse secondary science objectives by performing slant visibility observations, sea-surface reflectivity observations, desert surface observations and observations of Transient Luminous Events, better known as sprites. MEIDEX also made the first space observation of a glory.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Shuttle Ozone Limb Sounding Experiment-02 (SOLSE-02) ===
|
||||
SOLSE-2 was a hyperspectral imaging spectrometer built at the Goddard Space Flight Center that demonstrated a new technique to measure the vertical distribution of ozone in the atmosphere. The first demonstration flight of SOLSE-1 was on STS-87 in 1997. Once proven over a wider range of viewing conditions, the SOLSE-2 technique was incorporated to routinely measure ozone by the next generation of weather satellites, including the Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS), that was launched in 2011.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Critical Viscosity of Xenon-2 (CVX-2) ===
|
||||
The Critical Viscosity of Xenon-2 Experiment measures the viscous behavior of xenon – a heavy, inert gas used in flash lamps and ion rocket engines – at its critical point.
|
||||
The data from the CVX-2 experiment was believed lost in the disaster. The hard drive that carried its data, a Seagate ST9385AG 2.5" hard drive with 400 MB storage capacity, was found and believed to be melted beyond recognition. In 2008, however, a data recovery specialist cleaned the hard drive's storage platters and rebuilt them into a new hard drive. They were able to recover 99% of the data, saving the experiment.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Solar Constant Experiment-3 (SOLCON-3) ===
|
||||
The SOLCON instrument is designed to accurately measure the solar constant and identify variations in the value during a solar cycle. SOLCON measures the solar irradiance in space to avoid perturbations by the atmosphere of the Earth. It is also used as a reference to construct a long-duration time series of the solar irradiance. This data will ensure continuity of the solar constant level obtained by instruments mounted on free flyers, over climate time-scale duration.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Space Experiment Module (SEM) ===
|
||||
The SEM is made up of 11 separate student experiments from schools across the United States and is the 14th flight of a SEM on the Space Shuttle.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Low Power Transceiver (LPT) experiment ===
|
||||
The Low Power Transceiver is a compact, flexible device that can be configured to perform custom communications and navigation functions in terrestrial, airborne and space applications. The LPT experiment was executed in conjunction with the Communications And Navigation Demonstration On Shuttle (CANDOS) experiment, which examined mobile IP in space.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
NASA
|
||||
Space Shuttle program
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
NASA.gov, Flight activity requirements
|
||||
NASAN.gov, SOLSE Lost – Saturday, February 1, 2003
|
||||
NASA.gov, STS-107, Crew Worked Directly With Goddard Team
|
||||
NASAN.gov, Sprites and Elve from MEIDEX
|
||||
NASA.gov, Interactions of mineral dust and sea salt with clouds; some results from the MEIDEX campaign
|
||||
57
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getaway_Special-0.md
Normal file
57
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getaway_Special-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Getaway Special"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getaway_Special"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:13.705491+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Getaway Special was a NASA program that offered interested individuals, or groups, opportunities to fly small experiments aboard the Space Shuttle. Over the 20-year history of the program, over 170 individual missions were flown. The program, which was officially known as the Small, Self-Contained Payloads program, was canceled following the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster on February 1, 2003.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
|
||||
The program was conceived by NASA's Shuttle program manager John Yardley, and announced in the fall of 1976. The "Getaway Special" nickname originated from a special vacation fare for flights between Los Angeles and Honolulu being advertised by Trans World Airlines at the time around the program's conception.
|
||||
The first Getaway Special was purchased by Gilbert Moore of Thiokol on October 12, 1976, and donated to Utah State University. It was flown on Columbia during STS-4 in June/July 1982. The program was canceled after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster on February 1, 2003. The last Getaway Special, which was carried aboard STS-107, was the Freestar experiment package, which carried six different experiments. Much of the data was lost when Columbia was destroyed, but some data was transmitted during the mission.
|
||||
After reorganization of the Shuttle Program, NASA cited the need for the remaining Shuttle fleet to complete assembly of the ISS to justify its decision to cancel the program. The GAS program canisters and GAS Bridge combined weight were only usable on low orbit missions, which were rescheduled with higher priority payloads. With payload and program limits set on the remaining Shuttle missions until the expected STS close-out in 2010, the GAS program was eliminated.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Allocation ==
|
||||
To assure that diverse groups would have access to space, NASA rotated GAS payload assignments among four major categories of users: educational, foreign, commercial, and U.S. government. GAS payloads had been reserved by foreign governments and individuals; U.S. industrialists, foundations, high schools, colleges and universities; professional societies; service clubs; and many others. Although persons and groups involved in space research obtained many of the reservations, a large number of spaces were reserved by persons and organizations outside the space community.
|
||||
GAS requests were first approved at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., by the director of the Transportation Services Office. At that point NASA screened the propriety and objectives of each request. To complete the reservation process for GAS payloads, each request was accompanied or preceded by the payment of $500. Approved requests were assigned an identification number and referred to the GAS team at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, the designated lead center for the project. The GAS team screened the proposals for safety and provided advice and consultation on payload design. It certified that proposed payloads would be safe and would not harm or interfere with the operations of the space shuttle, its crew, or other experiments on the flight. The costs of any physical testing required to answer safety questions before launch were borne by the GAS customer.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Requirements ==
|
||||
|
||||
There were no stringent requirements to qualify for participation in the GAS program. However, each payload was required to meet specific safety criteria, have been screened for its propriety, as well as being evaluated for its educational, scientific or technological objectives. These guidelines preclude commemorative items, such as medallions, that are intended for sale as objects that have flown in space. NASA's Space Shuttle program had specific standards and conditions relating to GAS payloads. Payloads were required to have fit into NASA standard containers and weigh no more than 200 pounds (91 kg). Two or more experiments could have been included in a single container if they fit while not exceeding weight limitations. The payload must have been self-powered, as experiments could not draw on the Shuttle orbiter's electricity. In addition, the crew's involvement with GAS payloads was limited to six simple activities (such as turning on and off up to three payload switches), due to the fact that crew activity schedules do not provide opportunities to either monitor or service GAS payloads in flight.
|
||||
The cost of this unique service depended on the size and weight of the experiment. Getaway specials of 200 pounds (91 kg) and 5 cubic feet (0.14 m3) cost $10,000; 100 pounds (45 kg) and 2.5 cubic feet (0.071 m3), $5,000; and 60 pounds (27 kg) and 2.5 cubic feet (0.071 m3), $3,000. The weight of the GAS container, experiment mounting plate and its attachment screws, and all hardware regularly supplied by NASA was not charged to the experimenter's weight allowance.
|
||||
The GAS container provided internal pressure, which could be varied from near vacuum to about one atmosphere. The bottom and sides of the container were always thermally insulated, and the top may have been insulated or not, depending on the specific experiment. A lid that could be opened, or one with a window, may be required, and were offered as options at additional cost. The GAS containers were made of aluminum, and the circular end plates are 5⁄8 inch (16 mm) thick aluminum. The bottom 3 inches (76 mm) of the container were reserved for NASA interface equipment, such as command decoders and pressure regulating systems. The container was a pressure vessel that could be evacuated before or during launch, or on orbit, and could be re-pressurized during re-entry, or on orbit, as required by the experimenter.
|
||||
The getaway bridge, which was capable of holding 12 canisters, made its maiden flight on STS-61-C. The aluminum bridge fit across the payload bay of the orbiter and offered a convenient and economic way of flying several GAS canisters.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Example of GAS experiments ==
|
||||
STS-7 – Pugas
|
||||
STS-40 – G-616 Cosmic Radiation Effects on Floppy Disks
|
||||
STS-47 – Project POSTAR
|
||||
STS-61-C – 1986: Vertical Horizons (G-481)
|
||||
Ellery Kurtz, artist, and Howard Wishnow, Project Coordinator. An art conservation experiment on board the Space Shuttle Columbia. Included in the canister as part of the experiment were four original oil paintings by Kurtz, and other artistic materials, in order to evaluate the effects of spaceflight on fine art materials.
|
||||
STS-91 – June 2, 1998 (G-743)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Full list of experiments ==
|
||||
|
||||
Reference for this table:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
|
||||
Hitchhiker Program – program run by the same office as the GAS Program (SSPP)
|
||||
Space Shuttle
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchhiker_Program-0.md
Normal file
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchhiker_Program-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Hitchhiker Program"
|
||||
chunk: 1/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchhiker_Program"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:14.913706+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Hitchhiker Program (HH) was a NASA program established in 1984 and administered by the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). The program was designed to allow low-cost and quick reactive experiments to be placed on board the Space Shuttle. The program was discontinued after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster of STS-107.
|
||||
|
||||
== Program history ==
|
||||
NASA's Hitchhiker project began in early 1984. It was created to accommodate small attached payloads in the Space Shuttle payload bay. Hitchhikers were intended for customers whose space activity requires power, data or command services.
|
||||
The first Hitchhiker launched on STS-61-C on January 12, 1986. Called HHG-1, it was mounted to the side of the payload bay and carried three experiments. The second Hitchhiker launched on STS-39 on April 28, 1991. This payload was called Space Test Payload (STP)-1 and consisted of five experiments mounted onto a cross-bay carrier. Between 1992 and 1995, 12 Hitchhikers were manifested to fly on the Space Shuttle.
|
||||
The Hitchhiker system provided real-time communications between the payload and customers in the Hitchhiker control center at Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland. The system also provided crew control/display capability, if necessary. Hitchhikers were created to provide a quick reaction and low cost capability for flying small payloads in the Shuttle payload bay.
|
||||
Along with NASA's Get Away Specials (GAS), Hitchhiker was developed and operated by the Goddard Space Flight Center Shuttle Small Payloads Project (SSPP). Unlike Hitchhikers, GAS payloads were only mounted in canisters, did not connect to orbiter electrical services and did not require significant Shuttle support.
|
||||
|
||||
== Hitchhiker experiments ==
|
||||
Hitchhiker experiments were housed in canisters or attached to mounting plates. The Hitchhiker canister came in two varieties—the Hitchhiker Motorized Door Canister and the Sealed Canisters. The Hitchhiker Motorized Door Canister had mechanical interfaces nearly identical to a GAS canister and could accommodate a customer payload of up to 160 pounds (72.6 kilograms). This canister allowed a payload to be exposed directly to the environment of space.
|
||||
The Sealed Canister, without a door, could accommodate a customer payload up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms). The payload in this canister was sealed in an atmosphere of nitrogen or air.
|
||||
Experiments attached to mounting plates could be placed on the vertical plate, a 25 inches (63.5 centimeters) by 39 inches (99.1 centimeters) mounting surface for up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms) of customer hardware. A larger mounting plate measured 50 inches (127 centimeters) by 60 inches (152.4 centimeters). This plate, available for use on the side-mount carrier, was for larger experiments or hardware requirements. Customer hardware mounted on plates may have needed additional customer-provided thermal control provisions, such as heaters or blankets.
|
||||
|
||||
== List of all Hitchhiker and GAS experiments ==
|
||||
|
||||
Reference for this table:
|
||||
|
||||
== Hitchhiker carrier system ==
|
||||
|
||||
The Hitchhiker carrier system was modular and expandable in accordance with payload requirements. This flexibility allowed maximum efficiency in utilizing orbiter resources and increased the potential for early manifesting on the shuttle.
|
||||
There were two types of carrier systems—the Hitchhiker Side-Mount Carrier System and the Hitchhiker Cross-Bay Bridge Carrier System. Either system could accept the Hitchhiker canister and the mounting plates.
|
||||
The Hitchhiker Side-Mount Carrier System used a GAS Adapter Beam for all equipment. The beam attached to the orbiter frame. The side-mount carrier was usually installed in the forward starboard side of the payload bay, although other configurations and locations were possible. This carrier could hold up to three experiments and the Hitchhiker avionics box, which connected the power, data and signal from the shuttle to the experiments.
|
||||
The Hitchhiker Cross-Bay Carrier could be located anywhere in the payload bay. The carrier could accommodate 11 Hitchhiker canisters or 11 of the smaller mounting plates. There was also room for the necessary avionic units.
|
||||
Four additional mounting slots were located on the top of the carrier and could accept 33 inch (83.8 centimeter) by 27 inch (68.6 centimeter) pallets or 33 inch (83.8 centimeter) by 55 inch (139.7 centimeter) pallets in any combination with up to 500 pounds (226.8 kilograms) of equipment. Any customer experiments and hardware that could be mounted on the side-mount carrier could also be flown on the cross-bay carrier.
|
||||
|
||||
== Astronaut involvement ==
|
||||
NASA created Hitchhikers to provide customers with a way to send small payloads into orbit on the Space Shuttle. This was done with a short turn-around-time—from manifest to flight took an average of 18 months. To keep the project on schedule, experiments needed to fit in canisters or on mounting plates and meet standard mechanical and electrical interfaces.
|
||||
Because the payload met these conditions, it also was entitled to special "handling" in the orbiter that other small payloads, like the Get Away Specials did not receive. This special handling included tapping into the Shuttle for power and "astronaut" services," such as requiring specific shuttle attitudes or maneuvers. The orbiter crew moved the Shuttle when necessary to the position needed for the Hitchhiker experiment, provided it did not interfere with the needs of the primary payloads.
|
||||
Hitchhikers were manifested to fly with primary payloads that either have similar requirements or that will not be affected by the changes in shuttle position necessary to the Hitchhiker experiments. In addition to making adjustments to the orbiter, the astronaut crew participated in the Hitchhiker experiments by controlling the flow of orbiter power on or off using two switches located on the Standard Switch Panel.
|
||||
The first switch controlled power to the avionics unit. The second switch allowed power to flow from the avionics unit to the experiment. This simple measure allowed the astronauts to have some control over the experiment, in the event of a problem. For some payloads, the crew had a keyboard/display unit, for additional control.
|
||||
34
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchhiker_Program-1.md
Normal file
34
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchhiker_Program-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Hitchhiker Program"
|
||||
chunk: 2/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchhiker_Program"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:14.913706+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Avionics ==
|
||||
Getting the power from the shuttle to the payload required an avionics unit. This unit connected the power from the shuttle to the experiment. The avionics unit also carried the equipment for transmitting the data real-time to the ground control center. The avionics unit also contained the relay switching equipment and had the connections for the customer to use the shuttle television system, and the crew control/display system. Each avionics unit could handle the requirements for six experiments.
|
||||
|
||||
== The Goddard Connection ==
|
||||
Goddard was responsible for the management and operation of the Hitchhiker project through the Shuttle Small Payloads Project. In this capacity Goddard provided the Hitchhiker carriers and the avionics unit.
|
||||
During the mission, customers used a control center located at Goddard. The customer provided Ground System Equipment (CGSE), software and personnel to generate commands to the payload and display data from the payload during flight, as well as during payload-to-carrier integration and verification testing.
|
||||
The Hitchhiker carrier system was equipped with a "transparent" data system which allowed customers to easily use their existing ground equipment and software to control their experiments during flight. Data was sent down to the control center in real time, but it also was recorded at Goddard once it reached the ground. The data was transmitted over Goddard's Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System.
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
NASA
|
||||
Getaway Special
|
||||
Space Shuttle program
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Hitchhiker Program - NASA Fact Sheet
|
||||
University of Arizona - Hitchhiker
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Hitchhiker Ejection System
|
||||
Hitchhiker STS-95 Experiments
|
||||
Studied the critical viscosity of Xenon-a gas used in flash lamps and ion rocket engines
|
||||
Infrared Spectral Imaging Radiometer experiment
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopkins_Ultraviolet_Telescope"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:16.087100+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT) was a space telescope designed to make spectroscopic observations in the far-ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum. It was flown into orbit on the Space Shuttle and operated from the Shuttle's payload bay on two occasions: in December 1990, as part of Shuttle mission STS-35, and in March 1995, as part of mission STS-67.
|
||||
HUT was designed and built by a team based at Johns Hopkins University, led by Arthur Davidsen. The telescope consisted of a 90 cm main mirror used to focus ultraviolet light onto a spectrograph situated at the prime focus. This instrument had a spectroscopic range of 82.5 to 185 nms, and a spectral resolution of about 0.3 nm.
|
||||
It weighed 789 kilograms (1736 pounds).
|
||||
HUT was used to observe a wide range of astrophysical sources, including supernova remnants, active galactic nuclei, cataclysmic variable stars, as well as various planets in the Solar System. During the 1990 flight, HUT was used to make 106 observations of 77 astronomical targets. During the 1995 flight, 385 observations were made of 265 targets.
|
||||
HUT was co-mounted with WUPPE, Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope [UIT], and BBXRT on the Astro-1 mission (1990) and with just WUPPE and UIT on Astro-2 (in 1995).
|
||||
As of January 2023, HUT is now in storage at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. in the United States.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
HUT webpage at Johns Hopkins University
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Hypergolic Maintenance and Checkout Facility"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_Maintenance_and_Checkout_Facility"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:18.091542+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Hypergol Maintenance and Checkout Facility was a rocket fuel and engine complex located in an isolated part of the Kennedy Space Center industrial area. It was constructed in 1964 to support the Apollo program and upgraded in 1985 to support the Space Shuttle program. The hypergolic propellants used in the Space Shuttle's reaction control system, Orbital Maneuvering System, and the auxiliary power units provided hydraulic power to the shuttle's control surfaces, main engines and brakes were stored and processed in part of the complex. Part of the facility was used for cryogenic testing during the Apollo program and Solid Rocket Booster aft skirt hot-testing.
|
||||
Among other structures, the facility included two hypergol storage buildings, a hazardous waste staging shelter, a liquid oxygen fuel pad, a liquid hydrogen fuel pad, leaching ponds and equipment shelters. Its Hypergol Support Building was recorded and documented by the National Park Service in 2013.
|
||||
Later, part of the facility became known as the Hypergol Maintenance Facility Hazardous Waste South Staging Area.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Igla (spacecraft docking system)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igla_(spacecraft_docking_system)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:53.907520+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Igla (Russian: Игла, "Needle") docking system was a Soviet radio telemetry system for automated docking of Soyuz spacecraft. The first prototypes were made in late 1965. On 30 October 1967, the first automated docking of Soyuz uncrewed spacecraft took place.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Problems ==
|
||||
The Soyuz 15 mission was aborted when the system failed to dock to the Salyut 3, on 26 August 1974. There was no manual backup system.
|
||||
Salyut 5, launched on June 22, 1976, was equipped with an improved radio system. On July 6, 1976, Soyuz 21 had problems undocking automatically, but was able to undock manually. Soyuz 23 failed to dock, ran out of fuel to manual dock, and returned to Earth.
|
||||
The Igla docking system suffered an engine failure on Soyuz 33 on 10 April, 1979. After consideration by ground crews, the mission was aborted by firing the backup engines and initiating a ballistic reentry.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Kurs ==
|
||||
In 1986 Igla was succeeded by the Kurs docking system, first used on Soyuz TM-1.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Russian space history questions from Zeb Ottobre
|
||||
46
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_Upper_Stage-0.md
Normal file
46
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_Upper_Stage-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Inertial Upper Stage"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_Upper_Stage"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:19.347204+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), originally designated the Interim Upper Stage, was a two-stage, solid-fueled space launch system developed by Boeing for the United States Air Force beginning in 1976 for raising payloads from low Earth orbit to higher orbits or interplanetary trajectories following launch aboard a Titan 34D or Titan IV rocket as its upper stage, or from the payload bay of the Space Shuttle as a space tug.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Development ==
|
||||
During the development of the Space Shuttle, NASA, with support from the Air Force, wanted an upper stage that could be used on the Shuttle to deliver payloads from low earth orbit to higher energy orbits such as GTO or GEO or to escape velocity for planetary probes. The candidates were the Centaur, propelled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, the Transtage, propelled by hypergolic storable propellants Aerozine-50 and dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), and the Interim Upper Stage, using solid propellant. The US Department of Defense (DoD) reported that Transtage could support all defense needs but could not meet NASA's scientific requirements. The IUS could support most defense needs and some science missions, while the Centaur could meet all needs of both the Air Force and NASA. Development began on both the Centaur and the IUS, and a second stage was added to the IUS design which could be used either as an apogee kick motor for inserting payloads directly into geostationary orbit or to increase the payload mass brought to escape velocity.
|
||||
Boeing was the primary contractor for the IUS while Chemical Systems Division of United Technologies built the IUS solid rocket motors.
|
||||
When launched from the Space Shuttle, the IUS could deliver up to 2,270 kilograms (5,000 lb) directly to GEO or up to 4,940 kilograms (10,890 lb) to GTO.
|
||||
The first launch of the IUS was in 1982 on a Titan 34D rocket from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station shortly before the STS-6 Space Shuttle mission.
|
||||
Development of the Shuttle-Centaur was halted after the Challenger disaster, and the Interim Upper Stage became the Inertial Upper Stage.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Design ==
|
||||
The solid rocket motor on both stages had a steerable nozzle for thrust vectoring. The second stage had hydrazine reaction control jets for attitude control whilst coasting, and for separation from payload. Depending on mission, one, two or three 54 kg (120 lb) tanks of hydrazine could be fitted.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Applications ==
|
||||
|
||||
On Titan launches, the Titan booster would launch the IUS, carrying the payload into low Earth orbit where it was separated from the Titan and ignited its first stage, which carried it into an elliptical "transfer" orbit to a higher altitude.
|
||||
On Shuttle launches, the orbiter's payload bay was opened, the IUS and its payload raised (by the IUS Airborne Support Equipment (ASE)) to a 50-52° angle, and released. After the Shuttle separated from the payload to a safe distance, the IUS first stage ignited and, as on a Titan booster mission, entered a "transfer orbit".
|
||||
Upon reaching apogee in the transfer orbit, the first stage and interstage structure were jettisoned. The second stage then fired to circularize the orbit, after which it released the satellite and, using its attitude control jets, began a retrograde maneuver to enter a lower orbit to avoid any possibility of collision with its payload.
|
||||
In addition to the communication and reconnaissance missions described above, which placed the payload into stationary (24-hour) orbit, the IUS was also used to boost spacecraft towards planetary trajectories. For these missions, the second IUS stage was separated and ignited immediately after first stage burnout. Igniting the second stage at low altitude (and thus, high orbital speed) provided the extra velocity the spacecraft needed to escape from Earth orbit (see Oberth effect). IUS could not impart as much velocity to its payload as Centaur would have been able to: while Centaur could have launched Galileo directly on a two-year trip to Jupiter, the IUS required a six-year voyage with multiple gravity assists.
|
||||
The final flight of the IUS occurred in February 2004.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Flights ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Gallery ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Evolution of the Inertial Upper Stage Crosslink Winter 2003 Vol 4 Num 1 (published by The Aerospace Corporation), page 38
|
||||
Inertial Upper Stage at Federation of American Scientists
|
||||
31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist_in_Space_Project-0.md
Normal file
31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist_in_Space_Project-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Journalist in Space Project"
|
||||
chunk: 1/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist_in_Space_Project"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:20.532632+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Journalist in Space Project was a NASA program designed to inform the public about spaceflight. Journalists would have flown in space on NASA's Space Shuttle. Some forty finalists were selected from over 1,700 applications, but the project was postponed indefinitely and subsequently cancelled after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986.
|
||||
|
||||
== Origins ==
|
||||
From the earliest days of the Space Shuttle program, the National Air and Space Administration (NASA) had assumed that as experience with the Space Shuttle increased the safety of space flight, civilian passengers would be able to be taken along; journalists were specifically mentioned as likely candidates. In 1985, as the Space Shuttle flights became more routine, NASA asked the Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication (ASJMC) to recommend journalists who could ride on the Space Shuttle as passengers as part of its Journalist in Space Project. The goal of the Journalist in Space Project was not simply to fly a journalist in space as a passenger, but to inform the public about spaceflight.
|
||||
The ASJMC was formed in 1984 from the merger of two existing organizations. With its headquarters at the University of South Carolina College of Journalism in Columbia, South Carolina, it represented schools of journalism in 170 colleges and universities across the United States. The Journalist in Space Project was the ASJMC's first major project, and NASA's second citizens in space project after the Teacher in Space Project announced the year before. The ASJMC received US$50,000 (equivalent to $147,000 in 2025) in funding for the project. Albert Scroggins, the dean emeritus of the University of South Carolina College of Journalism, was appointed its chief program officer.
|
||||
|
||||
== Selection ==
|
||||
The ASJMC established a steering committee to coordinate the selection process. It met with representatives of professional journalist organizations on 16 October 1985, and created a Journalism Advisory Committee to liaise with them about the selection process. The main concerns were that the selection criteria should be broad, so as to maximise the number of people who would be eligible, and that there should as few restrictions on their reporting as possible.
|
||||
The Journalist in Space Project was publicly announced at a NASA press conference on 24 October 1985. Press releases were sent out, and the ASJMC published announcements in professional magazines. Copies of the announcement were sent directly to the Asian American Journalists Association, the California Chicano News Media Association, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Native American Press Association, the Overseas Press Club of America, and the organizations represented on the Journalism Advisory Committee.
|
||||
To be eligible to participate, applicants had to be:
|
||||
|
||||
A United States citizen;
|
||||
With five or more years of professional experience in US-based print or broadcast journalism covering contemporary events as a full-time reporter, correspondent, columnist, photographer or editorial cartoonist;
|
||||
And the approval or support of their employer;
|
||||
But not a US government employee, a former NASA employee, or the spouse of a present NASA employee.
|
||||
The individuals chosen to participate would receive training from NASA, and form part of a press pool for the period of training, the flight itself, and for up to thirty days afterwards. They would be free and encouraged to report as they chose, subject to privacy and national security concerns.
|
||||
Applications opened on 1 December 1985 and had to be submitted by 15 January 1986. Application packages containing the necessary forms were mailed out to everyone who wrote in or telephoned a request. The forms did not include questions about the applicant's race, sex or age, as these were not considered relevant to the requirements of the project. Applicants were asked to provide three references and two samples of their work. They had to write two short essays, and were informed that interviews would be video recorded. They had to sign a form stating that they understood the requirements of the project. Most application forms were received in the last few days. They were randomly assigned to one of the regional selection panels in the region where the applicant lived. In all, there were 5,149 requests for applications, from which 1,705 applications were received. Of these, 728 were from newspaper journalists, 584 from broadcast journalists, 101 worked for magazines and 159 were freelance journalist. The remaining 133 worked for other media organizations and wire services.
|
||||
Sam Donaldson, the ABC News White House correspondent, asked President Ronald Reagan for a reference, but this was declined on the grounds that it would be unfair to provide him with special treatment. Lynn Sherr asked her friend, astronaut Sally Ride, for a reference. "Fully aware that I would read what she wrote", Sherr recalled, "and no doubt convinced that she could arrange never to fly with a greenhorn like me (me, the Greek major who had avoided physics because botany seemed a more useful college major)—she typed out an essay that made me sound like Brenda Starr with wings."
|
||||
|
||||
In his application essay, Walter Cronkite wrote:I do not agree that the men and women who have gone into space are so inarticulate or so narrowly focused that they've been unable to communicate with us groundlings... Even before television's superb pictures, our astronauts gave us an extraordinarily vivid sense of what it is like up there.
|
||||
The principal thing that a journalist can offer is to free the public of the last lingering suspicion regarding reports from those who are part of the program; to guarantee that what is reported is free from control, or pressure, or even self interest.
|
||||
32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist_in_Space_Project-1.md
Normal file
32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist_in_Space_Project-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Journalist in Space Project"
|
||||
chunk: 2/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist_in_Space_Project"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:20.532632+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
In this sense the space-flying journalist will again be performing, as have all journalists through history, the role assigned him by our concept of a free press. He will be the people's surrogate, their eyes and ears in a situation in which the people themselves cannot participate.
|
||||
The steering committee divided the United States into five geographic regions. In each region, there were four cooperating schools and one coordinating school which hosted the selection panels, of which there were four in each region. They consisting of working journalists and academics from the journalism faculty of colleges and universities in the region. At least three members of each panel had to be working journalists, and print and broadcast journalists were on every panel. Efforts were also made to ensure that the panels had good demographic representation. The method of scoring and ranking candidates was left entirely up to the individual section panels. NASA gave final approval to the selection process on 18 November 1985.
|
||||
The selection panels would recommend five candidates each. A regional panel would interview the twenty semifinalists from its region, and select the best eight. The forty national semifinalists would then attend a national workshop and orientation event, during which they would be interviewed by a national selection panel consisting of fourteen journalists and academics, and former astronaut Terry Hart. This panel would select the best five. These five finalists would undergo medical and background checks, and then be interviewed by the NASA's seven-person Space Flight Participant Evaluation Committee, the same committee that had selected the candidates for the Teacher in Space Project. They would select the prime and backup candidates for the mission, The mission was scheduled to be flown on the Space Shuttle Challenger on 27 September 1986.
|
||||
The project was immediately and indefinitely suspended after the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on 28 January 1986. Astronaut Michael Smith, who was to have flown on the 27 September mission, was among those killed. NASA and the ASJMC reviewed the project, and agreed to continue with the selection process. The regional selection panels commenced work on 2 March and completed their selections by 5 April. The semifinalists were then contacted and asked if they wished to continue. Two candidates withdrew at this point, and were replaced by alternative choices of the selection panels. The identity of the 100 regional semifinalists was publicly announced on 16 April. The applicants who were not selected were notified of their non-selection. All applicants were sent a personalized certificate of recognition for their participation in the project.
|
||||
Meanwhile, the steering committee had developed a set of standard procedures for video taped interviews of the 100 semifinalists. Although the project (and the whole Space Shuttle program) was under a cloud, NASA and the ASJMC decided to continue with the next phase of selection. Interviews were conducted between 27 April and 13 May, and the forty finalists were publicly announced on 14 May 1986.
|
||||
|
||||
== Finalists ==
|
||||
Of the forty national semifinalists, fifteen worked for newspapers, fourteen in radio or television, three for magazines, five were freelance journalists, and three worked for wire services.
|
||||
|
||||
Source:
|
||||
|
||||
== Suspension ==
|
||||
The steering committee expected that the workshop and selection of the five finalists would be conducted in October 1986, but on 1 July 1986, NASA asked the ASJMC to put the selection process on hold until such a time as another mission could be scheduled. This never happened. The Journalist in Space Project was never revived. In 1990, Japanese journalist Toyohiro Akiyama became the first journalist to fly in space, as a member of the Soyuz TM-11 mission. An announcement was to be made in February 2003 that Miles O'Brien had been chosen as the first journalist to fly to the International Space Station on the Space Shuttle, but this was cancelled after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.
|
||||
|
||||
== Notes ==
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication (31 July 1986). Journalist-in-Space Project – Final Report (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 6 March 2022.
|
||||
Jenkins, Dennis (2013). Space Shuttle: Developing an Icon 1972-2013. Vol. III. Forrest Lake, Minnesota: Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-249-6.
|
||||
Logsdon, John M. (2019). Ronald Reagan and the Space Frontier. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-319-98961-7.
|
||||
NASA (1 June 1972). Space Shuttle: Emphasis for the 1970's (PDF). NASA-EP-96. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
|
||||
Sherr, Lynn (2014). Sally Ride: America's First Woman in Space. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4767-2578-9. OCLC 885483468.
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/8
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:51.262294+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:21.881414+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/8
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:51.262294+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:21.881414+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/8
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:51.262294+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:21.881414+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/8
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:51.262294+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:21.881414+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 5/8
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:51.262294+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:21.881414+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 6/8
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:51.262294+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:21.881414+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 7/8
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:51.262294+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:21.881414+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 8/8
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:51.262294+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:21.881414+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39A"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:52.512763+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:23.221243+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39A"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:52.512763+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:23.221243+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39A"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:52.512763+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:23.221243+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39A"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:52.512763+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:23.221243+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39B"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:41:53.783513+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:24.481901+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
50
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Astronaut_Program-0.md
Normal file
50
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Astronaut_Program-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Korean Astronaut Program"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Astronaut_Program"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:56.295744+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Korean Astronaut Program (Korean: 한국 우주인 배출 사업) was an initiative by the South Korean government to send the first Korean into space via the Russian space program. A ten-day flight to the International Space Station (ISS) with astronaut Yi So-yeon occurred in 2008.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== First astronaut class ==
|
||||
|
||||
On December 25, 2006, two candidates—one woman and one man—were selected by South Korea during a ceremony held at SBS television center in Dungchon-dong, Seoul. This choice was the result of a comprehensive selection process which started with the screening of 36,000 applications.
|
||||
|
||||
Ko San (36, male, unmarried, researcher at Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology)
|
||||
Yi So-yeon (34, female, unmarried, researcher at the KAIST)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Other finalists ===
|
||||
The eight other finalists were:
|
||||
|
||||
Park Ji-young (23, female, master's course student at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology)
|
||||
Yun Seok-oh (29, male, unmarried, official at Hanyang University)
|
||||
Lee Jin-young (36, male, married, squadron leader at Republic of Korea Air Force)
|
||||
Jang Joon-sung (25, male, unmarried, lieutenant at Bucheon Nambu Police Station)
|
||||
Ryu Jeong-won (33, male, married, chief technology officer at IT Magic Co.)
|
||||
Lee Han-gyu (33, male, unmarried, researcher at Samsung SDI)
|
||||
Choi Ah-jeong (24, female, unmarried, master's course student at Seoul National University)
|
||||
Kim Young-min (33, male, married, researcher at Korea Basic Science Institute)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== First space mission ===
|
||||
The winning pair was sent to Russia in early 2007 to undergo a 15-month training course at the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center near Moscow.
|
||||
On September 5, 2007, Ko San was named as the prime candidate, whilst Yi So-yeon served as his backup. However, on March 10, 2008, it was announced that the prime candidate would be changed to Yi So-yeon due to several violations of training protocol by Ko San. Ko San served as backup.
|
||||
On April 8, 2008 Yi So-yeon took off from the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan at 11:16 GMT aboard Soyuz TMA-12. She spent ten days conducting scientific experiments aboard the International Space Station.
|
||||
It cost South Korea approximately 26 billion won (US$28 million) to pay for the training and spaceflight.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Post-first mission ===
|
||||
In 2014, Yi So-yeon resigned from the program to pursue an MBA, which was incompatible with continuing as an astronaut.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
The Korean astronaut program
|
||||
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LI-900-0.md
Normal file
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LI-900-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "LI-900"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LI-900"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:30.724147+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
LI-900 is a type of reusable surface insulation tile developed and manufactured by Lockheed Missiles and Space Company. It was designed for use on the Space Shuttle orbiter as part of its thermal protection system to minimize thermal conductivity while providing maximum thermal shock resistance.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Statistics ==
|
||||
LI-900 has a bulk density of 144.2 kg/m3, or 9 lb/ft3. Due to this material’s density being 9 lb/ft3 it was called the LI-900. It is made from 99.9% pure silica glass fibres, and is 94% air by volume. An LI-900 tile can be heated to 1,204 °C (1,477 K; 2,199 °F) and then immediately plunged into cold water and suffer no damage.
|
||||
Black and white tiles were used on the Space Shuttle to control the temperature of the vehicle while in orbit.
|
||||
|
||||
White tiles (known as low temperature reusable surface insulation or LRSI) were used mainly on the upper surface and have higher thermal reflectivity. These are therefore pointed towards the sun in order to minimize solar gain.
|
||||
Black tiles (known as high temperature reusable surface insulation or HRSI) are optimized for maximum emissivity, which means they lose heat faster than white tiles. This property is required in order to maximise heat rejection during re-entry.
|
||||
There are typically 20,000 HRSI LI-900 tiles on a Space Shuttle, and 725 LRSI LI-900 tiles.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Problems ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Strength ===
|
||||
As a result of optimizing its thermal properties, overall strength was reduced. The tile was therefore not suitable to be used in high-stress areas such as around the landing gear doors and windows. To solve this, a higher strength version of the LI-900 material was produced, with a bulk density of 352.4 kg/m3 (22 lb/ft3), which was called the LI-2200. This tile provided the strength and insulating properties, but with a considerable weight penalty.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Space Shuttle thermal protection system
|
||||
Atmospheric reentry
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Sources ==
|
||||
NASA facts on the Orbiter Thermal Protection System
|
||||
Research and technology report on shuttle materials resistant to MMOD
|
||||
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Dynamic_Range_Imager-0.md
Normal file
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Dynamic_Range_Imager-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Laser Dynamic Range Imager"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Dynamic_Range_Imager"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:26.981657+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Laser Dynamic Range Imager (LDRI) is a LIDAR range imaging device developed by Sandia National Laboratories for the US Space Shuttle program. The sensor was developed as part of NASA's "Return to Flight" effort following the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster to provide 2-D and 3-D images of the thermal protection system on the Space Shuttle Orbiter.
|
||||
The LDRI generates 3-dimensional images from 2-dimensional video. Modulated laser illumination is demodulated by the receive optics, and the resulting video sequences can be processed to produce 3-d images. The modulation produces a flickering effect from frame-to-frame in the video imagery.
|
||||
As part of the Orbiter Boom Sensor System, the LDRI is mounted at the end of the boom on a pan-tilt unit (PTU) along with an intensified video camera (ITVC). During 2-dimensional imaging of the reinforced carbon-carbon panels on the leading edge of the shuttle's wings, the LDRI is capable of seeing damage as small as a 0.020 in (0.51 mm) crack.
|
||||
During the mission STS-114, the LDRI was used to obtain 3-D measurements of a loose gap filler on the underside of the orbiter. The LDRI also flew on the subsequent mission, STS-121. On this mission, NASA TV broadcast live raw video from the LDRI of the entire wing leading edge and nosecap surveys on flight day 2.
|
||||
An earlier version of the LDRI originally flew as a DTO on STS-97.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_Complex_39_Press_Site"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:33:54.196183+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:28.216775+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "List of Russian human spaceflight missions"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_human_spaceflight_missions"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:00.987370+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
This is a list of the human spaceflight missions conducted by Roscosmos (previously and alternatively known as the Russian Space Agency, the Russian Aviation and Space Agency, and the Russian Federal Space Agency) since 1992. All Russian human spaceflight missions thus far have been carried out using the Soyuz vehicle, and all visited either Mir or the International Space Station.
|
||||
The Roscosmos program is the successor to the Soviet space program. Numeration of the Soyuz flights therefore continues from previous Soviet Soyuz launches. For previous flights of the Soyuz and other crewed space vehicles, see List of Soviet human spaceflight missions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz-TM (1992–2002) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz-TMA (2003–2012) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz TMA-M (2010–2016) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz MS (2016–present) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Future crewed flights ===
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Notes ==
|
||||
1 Commercially funded cosmonaut or other "spaceflight participant".
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of Progress flights, with all flights of the Progress resupply craft that is based on the Soyuz
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "List of Soviet human spaceflight missions"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_human_spaceflight_missions"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:02.246241+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
This is a list of the human spaceflight missions conducted by the Soviet space program. These missions belong to the Vostok, Voskhod, and Soyuz space programs.
|
||||
The first patch from the Soviet Space Program was worn by Valentina Tereshkova, then the same patch for the Voskhod 2, Soyuz 4/5 and Soyuz 11, Soyuz 3 had an official insignia that wasn't worn during the flight, and then in the Apollo–Soyuz program. After that and until Soyuz TM-12 "Juno" flight mission patches had been designed only for international missions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Vostok program ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Voskhod program ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz program ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== First Soyuz missions to Salyut 1 (1967–1971) ===
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== 1973–1977 ===
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Salyut 6 to Salut 7 (1977–1986) ===
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Crewed Soyuz-TM Mir missions (1987–1991) ===
|
||||
|
||||
For subsequent Soyuz missions conducted by the Russian Federal Space Agency, see List of Russian human spaceflight missions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Notes ===
|
||||
1 Commercially funded cosmonaut or other "spaceflight participant".
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of Progress flights, with all flights of the Progress resupply craft that is based on the Soyuz spacecraft
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
73
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions-0.md
Normal file
73
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "List of Soyuz missions"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soyuz_missions"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:49.005667+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
This is a list of crewed and uncrewed flights of Soyuz series spacecraft.
|
||||
The Soyuz programme is an ongoing human spaceflight programme which was initiated by the Soviet Union in the early 1960s, originally part of a Moon landing project intended to put a Soviet cosmonaut on the Moon. It is the third Soviet human spaceflight programme after the Vostok and Voskhod programmes. Since the 1990s, as the successor state to the Soviet Union, Russia has continued and expanded the programme, which became part of a multinational collaboration to ensure a permanent human presence in low Earth orbit on the ISS (ISS). Soyuz spacecraft previously visited the Salyut and Mir space stations. Between the retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011 and the first orbital flight of SpaceX's Crew Dragon in 2019, Soyuz were the only human-rated orbital spacecraft in operation, and the only way to transport crews to the ISS. Russia plans to succeed Soyuz in the 2020s with the Federatsiya/Orel programme, using new reusable capsules launching on Angara rockets, to transport cosmonauts to orbit.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Crewed mission numbers and spacecraft generations ==
|
||||
Beginning in 1966, the Soyuz programme has sent humans into space on a regular basis for over fifty years. Due to its length, the program has a complex history, which may lead to confusion about its mission numbers. The mission numbering scheme for crewed Soyuz flights is closely related to the generations of spacecraft. Understanding the former is made significantly easier by understanding the latter.
|
||||
The first era of the Soyuz programme's crewed missions (Soyuz 1-40) used the 7K series of Soyuz craft, which included the first-generation (1.0) Soyuz 7K-OK, a variant (1.5) Soyuz 7K-OKS, the second-generation (2.0) Soyuz 7K-T, and the (2.5) Soyuz 7K-TM variant. Following this first era, successive eras of crewed missions have had mission numbers which were directly tied to the names of craft used:
|
||||
|
||||
The second era of Soyuz T flights used the third-generation (3.0) craft of the same name. Mission numbers were of the form: "Soyuz T-#".
|
||||
The third era of Soyuz TM flights used the fourth-generation (4.0) craft of the same name. Mission numbers were of the form: "Soyuz TM-#".
|
||||
The fourth era of Soyuz TMA flights used the fifth-generation (5.0) craft of the same name. Mission numbers were of the form: "Soyuz TMA-#".
|
||||
The fifth era of Soyuz TMA-M flights used the fifth-generation variant (5.5) craft of the same name. Mission numbers were of the form "Soyuz TMA-##M".
|
||||
The sixth and current era of Soyuz MS flights uses the sixth-generation (6.0) craft of the same name. Mission numbers are of the form: "Soyuz MS-##".
|
||||
Within each given era, a mission number generally reflects the mission's chronological launch order, e.g. Soyuz TMA-12M was the twelfth mission of the TMA-M era, immediately preceded by Soyuz TMA-11M and immediately followed by Soyuz TMA-13M. Although there are exceptions to this (detailed below in the first table), the mission numbering scheme is usually consistent with chronological launch orders. This is in contrast with the mission numbers of the Space Shuttle program, which were tied to specific mission objectives and did not reflect chronological launch orders, e.g. STS-50, the forty-eighth Shuttle mission, was immediately followed by STS-46, the forty-ninth Shuttle mission.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz 7K (1966–1981) ==
|
||||
The first Soyuz series was the 7K series.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Soyuz 7K-L1 ===
|
||||
|
||||
Spacecraft designed for Soviet human circumlunar missions. Missions are included under the Zond programme.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Soyuz 7K-LOK ===
|
||||
|
||||
Spacecraft designed for Soviet human lunar orbital and landing missions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz T (1979–1986) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz TM (1987–2002) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz TMA (2002–2012) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz TMA-M (2010–2016) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz MS (2016–) ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
|
||||
List of Space Shuttle missions
|
||||
Progress (spacecraft)
|
||||
Soyuz programme
|
||||
Soyuz (spacecraft)
|
||||
Soyuz(Rocket)
|
||||
Soyuz(Rocket family)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Notes ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
Wade, Mark. "Encyclopedia Astronautica". Archived from the original on 5 July 2002.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Footnotes ==
|
||||
34
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Freedom_Star-0.md
Normal file
34
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Freedom_Star-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "MV Freedom Star"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Freedom_Star"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:11.220450+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
MV Freedom Star is a formerly NASA-owned and United Space Alliance-operated vessel which primarily served as an SRB recovery ship following the launch of Space Shuttle missions. It also performed tugboat duties and acted as a research platform.
|
||||
From 2012 to 2016, it was a National Defense Reserve Fleet vessel in the James River Reserve Fleet, when it was then loaned by the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) to the Paul Hall Center for Maritime Training and Education in Piney Point, Maryland, for use as a training vessel. Her sister ship is the MV Liberty Star (now TV Kings Pointer).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
The recovery ships were built at Atlantic Marine Shipyard on Fort George Island, Florida, and delivered in January 1981 to their original owner, United Technologies Corporation. As well as recovering the Space Shuttle's SRBs, Freedom Star has since 1998 been used to tow the Space Shuttle external fuel tanks from their assembly plant at Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans, Louisiana, to the Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. She served a similar role in recovering the first test flight of the Ares I and was anticipated to continue recovering boosters for the Constellation program before it was canceled in 2010.
|
||||
Freedom Star underwent special strengthening enhancements to withstand the greater burden of towing the external fuel tanks. The stern was strengthened at critical points, new bulwark fairings were added, and an H-bitt was installed through which cabling is threaded to keep it centered during towing operations. Also installed was a hydraulic towing winch, referred to as a double-drum waterfall winch, holding 2,000 feet (610 m) or more of wire rope on each drum. One drum supports booster retrievals while the other is devoted to external tank towing.
|
||||
Freedom Star had been used to support scientific research operations including research for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and several universities. She was usually docked alongside her sister at the Solid Rocket Booster processing facility at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida.
|
||||
Each ship is propelled by two main engines providing a total of 2,900 horsepower. The main engines turn two seven-foot (2.1-meter) propellers with controllable pitch, which provides greater response time and maneuverability. The ships also are equipped with two thrusters. The stern thruster is a water jet system that allows the ship to move in any direction without the use of propellers. This system was installed to protect the endangered manatee population that inhabits regions of the Banana River where the ships are based. The system also allows divers to work near the ship during operations at a greatly reduced risk.
|
||||
In April 2012, NASA used Freedom Star to track a commercial orbital spaceflight by a Falcon 9 launch vehicle flown to the International Space Station by their space transport contractor SpaceX.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Transfer ===
|
||||
On September 28, 2012, Freedom Star was transferred to the U.S. Department of Transportation's James River Reserve Fleet for potential use as a training vessel.
|
||||
On November 6, 2015, USNS Freedom Star arrived at the Piney Point, Maryland-based maritime training school to become the Paul Hall Center's training vessel, on loan from MARAD's James River Reserve Fleet in Jamestown, Virginia. At the school, the Freedom Star replaces the Osprey, a yard patrol type vessel that served as the school's training platform from 1996 to 2009.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Media related to Freedom Star (tugboat, 1981) at Wikimedia Commons
|
||||
|
||||
Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Retrieval Ships at NASA.gov
|
||||
32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Liberty_Star-0.md
Normal file
32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Liberty_Star-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "MV Liberty Star"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Liberty_Star"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:31.930113+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
MV Liberty Star is a formerly NASA-owned and United Space Alliance-operated vessel which primarily served as an SRB recovery ship following the launch of Space Shuttle missions. It also performed tugboat duties and acted as a research platform. In 2012, it was transferred to the U.S. Department of Transportation for use as a training vessel at the United States Merchant Marine Academy as the T/V Kings Pointer. Her sister ship is the MV Freedom Star.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
The recovery ships were built at Atlantic Marine Shipyard on Fort George Island, Florida, and delivered in January 1981 to their original owner, United Technologies Corporation. As well as recovering the Space Shuttle, SRB's Liberty Star has since 1998 been used to tow the Space Shuttle external fuel tanks from their assembly plant at Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans, Louisiana, to the Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. She served a similar role in recovering the first test flight of the Ares I and was anticipated to continue recovering boosters for the Constellation program before it was canceled in 2010.
|
||||
The Liberty Star underwent special strengthening enhancements to withstand the greater burden of towing the external fuel tanks. The stern was strengthened at critical points, new bulwark fairings were added, and an H-bitt was installed through which cabling is threaded to keep it centered during towing operations. Also installed was a hydraulic towing winch, referred to as a double-drum waterfall winch, holding 2,000 feet (610 m) or more of wire rope on each drum. One drum supports booster retrievals while the other is devoted to external tank towing.
|
||||
|
||||
Liberty Star has also occasionally been used to support scientific research operations including research for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and several universities. She is usually docked alongside her sister at the Solid Rocket Booster processing facility at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida.
|
||||
Each ship is propelled by two main engines providing a total of 2,900 horsepower. The main engines turn two seven-foot (2.1-meter) propellers with controllable pitch, which provides greater response time and maneuverability. The ships also are equipped with two thrusters. The stern thruster is a water jet system that allows the ship to move in any direction without the use of propellers. This system was installed to protect the endangered manatee population that inhabits regions of the Banana River where the ships are based. The system also allows divers to work near the ship during operations at a greatly reduced risk.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Transfer ===
|
||||
On August 21, 2012, NASA agreed to transfer the Liberty Star to the U.S. Department of Transportation for use as a training vessel at the United States Merchant Marine Academy. The ship arrived at Kings Point, New York, on September 13, 2012, with formal turnover occurring on September 14. After being refit for training duty, which included additional berthing, she was renamed TV Kings Pointer, the fifth vessel of the Academy to carry that name. The transfer agreement stipulated that NASA could again use the vessel on future missions if she was available.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Media related to Liberty Star (tugboat, 1981) at Wikimedia Commons
|
||||
|
||||
Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster Retrieval Ships at NASA.gov
|
||||
25
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Marietta_Spacemaster-0.md
Normal file
25
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Marietta_Spacemaster-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Martin Marietta Spacemaster"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Marietta_Spacemaster"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:34.348866+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Martin Marietta Spacemaster was a proposed configuration for what became the Space Shuttle, which featured an X-24-derived orbiter, and an unusual "catamaran style" booster stage. During launch and ascent, the orbiter would be located in a recess in the booster. The booster's 14 engines would be located in clusters of seven, at the bottom of both halves of the booster. Unlike the final design for the Space Shuttle, the Spacemaster would lack an external tank, and the boosters would be joined, by means of connecting struts which would also serve as the mounting for the orbiter.
|
||||
The concept was evaluated in 1967, but was rejected. Martin Marietta went on to produce the Space Shuttle external tank (ET) for the final STS Space Shuttle design (by Lockheed Martin after a merger with Lockheed).
|
||||
A model of the Martin Marietta Spacemaster is in the collection of the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of space launch system designs
|
||||
Space Shuttle program
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Spacemaster scale model in black (in the foreground to the right)
|
||||
46
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate-Demate_Device-0.md
Normal file
46
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate-Demate_Device-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Mate-Demate Device"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mate-Demate_Device"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:35.571996+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Mate-Demate Device was a specialized gantry crane designed to lift a Space Shuttle orbiter onto and off the back of a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA). Two Mate-Demate Devices were built, one at the Armstrong Flight Research Center in California, the other at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. A third Orbiter Lifting Fixture was to serve a similar function at the Vandenberg Air Force Base, the proposed West Coast launch location for the Shuttle. It was later moved to Palmdale to support the plant where the Shuttle was built and refurbished. A portable sling was also built to support mate-demate operations away from the primary locations.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Armstrong Flight Research Center ==
|
||||
|
||||
The first Mate-Demate Device was built at NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center on Edwards Air Force Base, California, and completed in late 1976. It was first used with the prototype Space Shuttle Enterprise during the five Approach and Landing Tests in 1977.
|
||||
While the Shuttle Landing Facility airport at Kennedy Space Center in Florida served as the primary landing site for orbiters, the longer runways at Edwards were used for 11 of the first 12 missions and remained the primary backup site throughout the Shuttle program, being used on a total of 54 out of 135 missions (40%). This MDD was used to hoist orbiters onto the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft for transport back to Florida.
|
||||
The MDD in California consisted of two 100-foot (30 m) towers with stationary work platforms every 20 feet (6.1 m) up to the 80-foot (24 m) level. A horizontal structure was mounted at the 80-foot (24 m) level between the two towers. The horizontal unit cantilevers out 70 feet (21 m) from the main tower units. It controlled and guided a large lift beam that attached to the orbiters to raise and lower them.
|
||||
Three large hoists were then used simultaneously to raise and lower the lift beam. Two of the hoists are connected to the portion of the lift beam that attaches to the rear of the orbiter, and one is attached to the portion of the beam that attaches to the front. Each hoist had a 100,000-pound (45,000 kg) lift capability. Operating together, the total lifting capacity of the three units is 240,000 pounds (110,000 kg). Two access platforms for servicing specialists could descend from the cantilevered section to the sides of the orbiter.
|
||||
Connell Associates of Coral Gables, Florida, designed the MDD, which was constructed in 1976 by the George A. Fuller Company of Chicago, Illinois, for US$1,700,000 (equivalent to $9,618,421 in 2025). The MDD was dismantled in 2014 by Pantano Demolition of Manteca, California, at a cost of US$178,000 (equivalent to $242,079 in 2025).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Kennedy Space Center ==
|
||||
|
||||
A similar but slightly less complex Mate-Demate Device was located at the Shuttle Landing Facility airport at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. The MDD was located just off the southeast end of the runway. Its primary use was unloading the orbiter after its cross-country flight from Edwards.
|
||||
Like its sibling in California, the MDD in Florida consisted of two 100-foot (30 m) towers equipped with hoists, adapters and movable platforms for access to certain orbiter components and equipment. The KSC MDD's hoists had a total lifting capacity of 230,000 pounds (100,000 kg), slightly less than the California version.
|
||||
|
||||
The contract to build the KSC MDD was awarded during the first quarter of calendar year 1977 and it was completed in June 1978. The first use of the KSC MDD was on 19 October 1978 when the Space Shuttle Pathfinder was lifted for a fit-check. The first operational shuttle to use the KSC MDD was the Space Shuttle Columbia which was lifted up in March 1979 at the end of its delivery flight. The first air traffic control tower for the Shuttle Landing Facility was built on top of the KSC MDD. The KSC MDD was dismantled in 2014.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Orbiter Lifting Fixture ==
|
||||
|
||||
Orbiter Lifting Fixture was a scaled-down version of the MDD planned for use exclusively at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. It was first used by Space Shuttle Discovery during a fit-check during its initial delivery flight in November 1983 and was used to unload and load Space Shuttle Enterprise for pad fit checks at Vandenberg Space Launch Complex 6 in 1984 and 1985. Shuttle flights from the West Coast were canceled following the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
|
||||
The Orbiter Lifting Fixture was relocated to United States Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California where the orbiters were built and overhauled. The relocated Orbiter Lifting Fixture was first used for the delivery of the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 1991. Previously, the orbiters were trucked to the MDD at the Armstrong Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, about 36 miles (58 km) away, which took about 10 hours. The Orbiter Lifting Fixture was dismantled in 2008.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Mobile sling ==
|
||||
|
||||
On the rare occasions when an orbiter needed to be loaded or unloaded at a location where a permanent lifting device was not available, NASA had a special sling that could be attached to the orbiter, allowing it to be lifted by cranes. Typically, a smaller crane supported the front end of the sling, while a larger crane supported the rear. To compensate for the absence of the stabilizing structure normally provided by the MDD, an arrangement of wire ropes, masts, and winches would be set up to provide stability for the suspended Orbiter/Sling combination.
|
||||
The mobile sling was used multiple times early in the Shuttle program during the late 1970s and mid-1980s to transport Space Shuttle Enterprise for display at various locations around the world. It was also used to load Space Shuttle Columbia onto an SCA when it landed at White Sands in New Mexico at the end of STS-3 in 1982.
|
||||
|
||||
The sling went unused between the mid-1980s and 2012, but remained on standby to transport the shuttle in the case that it landed at one of its backup landing sites other than Edwards. The sling saw heavy use in 2012 to transport Discovery, Endeavour and Enterprise to museums at the conclusion of the Shuttle program.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michoud_Assembly_Facility"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:34:03.896659+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:36.805977+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michoud_Assembly_Facility"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:34:03.896659+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:36.805977+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/3
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michoud_Assembly_Facility"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T12:34:03.896659+00:00"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:36.805977+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
78
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Soyuz-0.md
Normal file
78
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Soyuz-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Military Soyuz"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Soyuz"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:03.407160+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Soviet Union planned several military Soyuz spacecraft models. These versions were named Soyuz P, Soyuz PPK, Soyuz R, Soyuz 7K-VI, and Soyuz OIS (Orbital Research Station). However, none of the spacecraft ever flew in space.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz P, R and PPK ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Soyuz P ===
|
||||
The Soyuz P (Perekhvatchik, Interceptor) space interceptor and Soyuz R (Razvedki, intelligence) command-reconnaissance spacecraft was proposed in December 1962 by Sergei Korolev. In the initial draft project, the Soyuz P would use the Soyuz 9K rocket stage and Soyuz 11K tanker spacecraft to conduct a series of dockings and re-fueling operations. The complete complex would then conduct intercepts of enemy satellites in orbits up to 6,000 km in altitude. Soyuz P was cancelled in 1963.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Soyuz R ===
|
||||
The Soyuz-R system (1963-1966) consisted of two separately launched spacecraft, including the small orbital station 11F71 with photo-reconnaissance and electronic intelligence equipment and a Soyuz 7K-TK for crew transport. Soyuz R was cancelled in 1966.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Soyuz PPK ===
|
||||
Initially the Soyuz P was designed for piloted inspection and destruction of enemy satellites. It was intended that the Soyuz would rendezvous with the target satellite. To minimize risk to the crew, a new version, Soyuz PPK (pilotiruemovo korablya-perekhvatchika, crewed interceptor spacecraft) was later proposed in 1964.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz 7K-VI Zvezda ==
|
||||
The Zvezda (star) station was based on a radically modified Soyuz begun in October 1965. Dmitri Kozlov was the chief engineer of the Soyuz VI project, he also worked on Soyuz-P and Soyuz-R. Soyuz 7K-VI objectives were crew earth observation, orbital inspection and destruction of enemy satellites. Zvezda would be powered by two plutonium radioisotope thermoelectric generators, as solar arrays required the spacecraft to be position to the sun, not a desired attack mode. Also the military experiments need more power than solar provided. Soyuz 7K-VI had a recoilless gun for defense. It was designed for shooting in a vacuum and defending the military research spacecraft from enemy satellite inspector and interceptor satellites. The gun was aimed by maneuvering the entire spacecraft. A special gunsight was installed in the descent module for aiming the gun. A forward docking apparatus to allow docking with Almaz was also included. Work on Zvezda was cancelled in 1967 with a single prototype in advanced stages of construction. Cosmonaut training for the VI began in September 1966. The cosmonaut group selected included commander Pavel Popovich, pilot Alexei Gubarev, flight-engineers Yuri Artyukhin, Vladimir Gulyaev, Boris Nikolaevich Belousov, and Gennadiy Kolesnikov. Popovich-Kolesnikov and Gubarev-Belousov were the prime crews, with the other engineers acting as reserves and then assigned to later crews.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Soyuz OIS (Orbital Research Station) ==
|
||||
The Soyuz OIS (Orbital Research Station) would consist of a separately-launched orbital block 11F731 OB-VI and a transport Soyuz 7K-S.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Soyuz OB-VI ===
|
||||
The Soyuz OB-VI would be launched for 30-day missions in a 51.6° orbit at 250 x 270 km. Power was provided by solar panels, and the payload included 700 to 1,000 kg of instrumentation. The total mass would be around 6,500 kg (14,300 lb).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Soyuz 7K-S ===
|
||||
The initial Soyuz 7K-S program was to consist of four uncrewed, followed by two crewed test flights, then two operational launches. Cosmonauts were assigned to the project in 1973.
|
||||
In 1975, the project was cancelled. At that time the launch escape system for 7K-S was ready and was used for Apollo-Soyuz Test Project flights. Three complete vehicles were launched as uncrewed test missions:
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Soyuz 7K-ST ===
|
||||
The Soyuz 7K-ST transport project was develop in parallel to the military 7K-S and was redesigned for a crew of three, eventually becoming the Soyuz-T used with the Salyut space stations.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
==== Specifications ====
|
||||
Crew Size: 2
|
||||
Total Length: 7.5 m
|
||||
Maximum Diameter: 2.7 m
|
||||
Total Habitable Volume: 9.00 m3
|
||||
Total Mass: 6,800 kg
|
||||
Primary Engine Thrust: 400 kgf
|
||||
Main Engine Propellants: N2O4/UDMH
|
||||
Main Engine Isp: 305 seconds
|
||||
Electrical System: Solar panels
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Relation with other Soyuz versions ==
|
||||
The list below shows proposed, flown (in bold) and military (in italic) Soyuz versions.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
List of space stations
|
||||
Salyut programme
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
RSC Energia: Concept Of Russian Manned Space Navigation Development
|
||||
Information on Soyuz spacecraft
|
||||
OMWorld's ASTP Docking Trainer Page
|
||||
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_recovery_ship-0.md
Normal file
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_recovery_ship-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "NASA recovery ship"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_recovery_ship"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:39.113825+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The NASA recovery ships are two ships, the MV Liberty Star and the MV Freedom Star, that were tasked with retrieving spent Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) following the launch of Space Shuttle missions. Although owned by NASA, the ships were operated by Space Flight Operations contractor United Space Alliance. Following the end of the Space Shuttle program, and therefore booster recovery, NASA transferred both vessels to the Department of Transportation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Design and construction ==
|
||||
Both ships were built at Atlantic Marine Shipyard on Fort George Island, Florida, and delivered in January 1981 to their original owner, United Technologies Inc. They are propelled by two main engines providing a total of 2,900 horsepower (2.2 MW), and are capable of towing 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) each. Two auxiliary engines with Jacuzzi-like jets (similar to those found in Naval riverine craft) as well as the extra caution taken by the crew allow the ships to coast up the Banana River without harming the significant manatee population.
|
||||
All gear on deck, including the 7,500-pound (3,400 kg) deck crane used to lift the booster frustum on deck, compressors for removing seawater from the boosters, winches and reels, bolt on and off to allow the vessels to be used for purposes other than booster recovery such as towing the Pegasus barge from Michoud Assembly Facility.
|
||||
Communications equipment includes a Kongsberg dynamic position system and joy stick control, X-band and S-band radars for tracking ship traffic and the falling SRBs, global positioning system, handheld VHF radios and GPS units, digital video and recording systems, voice and data satellite communication capability, VHF automatic direction finding, high-frequency single-side band radios, electronic chart plotters, night vision and Sea Area-3 Global Maritime Distress Safety System consoles. To satisfy NASA's need for more observational data during shuttle launches, a Weibel Scientific Continuous Pulse Doppler X-band radar was mounted on MV Liberty Star to provide velocity and motion information about the shuttle and any debris during launch.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Activities ==
|
||||
Aside from their usual missions of retrieving the Space Shuttle SRBs, the Liberty Star and Freedom Star have occasionally been used for other purposes. Starting in 1998, the ships began making use of their downtime between Shuttle launches by towing the Space Shuttle external fuel tanks from their assembly plant at Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, Louisiana to the Vehicle Assembly Building at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The ships performed similar missions when the Ares 1-X rocket was tested.
|
||||
To withstand the towing burden, Liberty Star and Freedom Star underwent deck-strengthening enhancements. The sterns were strengthened at critical points, new bulwark fairings were added, and an H-bitt was installed through which cabling is threaded to keep it centered during towing operations. A hydraulic towing winch was also installed, referred to as a double-drum waterfall winch, holding 2,000 feet or more of wire rope on each drum. One drum supports booster retrievals while the other is devoted to external tank towing.
|
||||
The ships have also occasionally been used to support scientific research operations including research for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and several universities. The ships are normally docked alongside each other next to the Solid Rocket Booster processing facility at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-0.md
Normal file
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "North American DC-3"
|
||||
chunk: 1/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:41.394188+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The DC-3 was one of several early design proposals for the NASA Space Shuttle designed by Maxime Faget at the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in Houston. It was nominally developed by North American Aviation (NAA), although it was a purely NASA-internal design. Unlike the design that eventually emerged, the DC-3 was a fully reusable launch vehicle two-stage-to-orbit spaceplane design with a small payload capacity of about 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) and limited maneuverability. Its inherent strengths were good low-speed handling during landing, and a low-risk development that was relatively immune to changes in weight and balance.
|
||||
Work on the DC-3 program ended when the US Air Force joined the Shuttle program and demanded a much greater "cross-range" maneuverability than the DC-3 could deliver. There were also serious concerns about its stability during re-entry, as well as heating conditions on its straight wings. NAA eventually won the Shuttle Orbiter contract, based on a very different design from another team at MSC.
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Background ===
|
||||
In the mid-1960s the US Air Force conducted a series of classified studies on next-generation space transportation systems. Among their many goals, the new launchers were intended to support a continued crewed military presence in space, and so needed to dramatically lower the cost of launches and increase launch rates. Selecting from a series of proposals, the Air Force concluded that semi-reusable designs were the best choice from an overall cost basis, and the Lockheed Star Clipper design was one of the most-studied examples. They proposed a development program with an immediate start on a "Class I" vehicle based on expendable boosters, followed by a slower development of a "Class II" semi-reusable design, and perhaps a "Class III" fully reusable design in the further future. Although it is estimated that the Air Force spent up to $1 billion on the associated studies, only the Class I program proceeded to development, as the X-20 Dyna-Soar, which was later cancelled.
|
||||
Not long after the Air Force studies, NASA started studying the post-Project Apollo era. A wide variety of projects were examined, many based on re-using Apollo hardware (Apollo X, Apollo Applications Program, etc.) Flush with the success of the Moon landings, a series of ever-more ambitious projects gained currency, a process that was considerably expanded under the new NASA director, Thomas O. Paine. By about 1970 these had settled on the near-term launching of a 12-man space station in 1975, expanding this to a 50-man "space base" by 1980, a smaller lunar-orbiting station, and then eventually a crewed mission to Mars in the 1980s. NASA awarded $2.9-million study contracts for the space stations to North American and McDonnell Douglas in July 1969.
|
||||
Almost as an afterthought the idea of a small and inexpensive "logistics vehicle" for supporting these missions developed in the late 1960s. George Mueller was handed the task of developing plans for such a system, and held a one-day symposium at NASA headquarters in December 1967 to study various options. Eighty people attended and presented a wide variety of potential designs, many from the earlier Air Force work, from small Dyna-Soar like vehicles primarily carrying crew and launched on existing expendable boosters, to much larger fully reusable designs.
|
||||
|
||||
=== ILRV ===
|
||||
On 30 October 1968 NASA officially began work on what was then known as the "Integral Launch and Re-entry Vehicle" (ILRV), a name they borrowed from the earlier Air Force studies. The development program was to take place in four phases; Phase A: Advanced Studies; Phase B: Project Definition; Phase C: Vehicle Design; and Phase D: Production and Operations. Four teams were to participate in Phase A; two in Phase B; and then a single prime contractor for Phases C and D. A separate Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) competition was to run in parallel.
|
||||
NASA Houston and Huntsville jointly issued the Request for Proposal (RFP) for eight-month Phase A ILRV studies. The requirements were for 5,000 to 50,000 lb of payload to be delivered into a 500 km altitude orbit. The re-entry vehicle should have a cross range of at least 450 miles, meaning that it could fly to the left or right of its normal orbital path. General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas, Martin Marietta, and (the newly named) North American Rockwell were invited to bid. In February 1969, following study of the RFPs, Martin Marietta's entry was dropped, although they continued work on their own. The other entries were all given additional Phase A funding.
|
||||
Supported by Paine's ambitious plans, in August 1969 the ILRV program was re-defined to be a "maximum effort" design, and only fully reusable designs would be accepted. This led to a second series of Phase A studies. The designs that were returned varied widely, meeting the huge payload range specified in the original RFP. Two basic fuselage designs seemed to be the most common; lifting body designs that offered high cross-range but limited maneuverability after re-entry, and delta-winged designs that reversed these criteria.
|
||||
|
||||
=== DC-3 ===
|
||||
15
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-1.md
Normal file
15
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "North American DC-3"
|
||||
chunk: 2/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:41.394188+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Faget felt that all of the proposed designs incorporated an unacceptable amount of development risk. Unlike a conventional aircraft, with separate fuselage and wings, the ILRV designs had blended wing-body layouts. This meant that changes in weight and balance, which are almost unavoidable during development, would require changes to the entire orbiter structure to compensate. He also felt that the poor low-speed handling of any of these layouts presented a real danger during landing. Upset by what he felt was a project that seemed to guarantee failure, he started work on his own design, and presented it as the DC-3.
|
||||
Unlike the other entries, DC-3 was much more conventional in layout, with an almost cylindrical fuselage and low-mounted slightly swept wings. The design looked more like a cargo aircraft than a spacecraft. Re-entry was accomplished in a 60 degree nose-high attitude that presented the lower surface of the spacecraft to the airflow, using a ballistic blunt-body approach that was similar to the one Faget had successfully pioneered on the Mercury capsule. During re-entry, the wings provided little or no aerodynamic lift. After re-entry, when the spacecraft entered the lower atmosphere, it would pitch over into a conventional flying attitude, ducts would open, and jet engines would start up for landing.
|
||||
The upside of this design approach was that changes in the weight and balance could be addressed simply by moving the wing or re-shaping it, a common solution that had been used for decades in aircraft design—including the original Douglas DC-3 whose wings were swept rearward for just this reason. The downside was that the spacecraft would have little hypersonic lift, so its ability to maneuver while re-entering would be limited and its cross-range would be about 300 miles. It could make up for some of this with its improved low-speed flying ability, but would still not be able to match the mandated 450 miles. The ballistic portion of its reentry profile also meant flying in a stall, which many NASA astronauts perceived as risky.
|
||||
Although the DC-3 had never been part of the original ILRV plans, Faget's name was so well respected that others at NASA MSC in Houston quickly rallied around him. Other NASA departments all selected their own favorite designs, including recoverable versions of Saturn boosters developed at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, lifting-bodies based on the HL-10 that were favored by the Langley Research Center and Dryden Flight Research Center (Edwards), and even a single-stage-to-orbit Aerospaceplane were also proposed. From then on, the entire program was beset with in-fighting between the various teams. On 1 June 1969, a report was published that attacked the DC-3 design, followed by several others over the remainder of the year. In spite of this, North American quickly took up the DC-3 design, having learned over the years that the best way to win a NASA contract was to make whatever design Faget favored. They won contract NAS9-9205 to develop the DC-3 in December 1969.
|
||||
In order to clear the logjam developing between the departments, on 23 January 1970 a meeting was held in Houston to study all of the in-house concepts. Over the next year a number of proposed designs would be dropped, including the entire series of lifting-body-derived vehicles as it proved too difficult to fit cylindrical tanks into the airframe. This left two basic approaches, delta wings and Faget's DC-3 series. Development of the DC-3 continued, with a drop test of a 1/10-scale model starting on 4 May.
|
||||
16
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-2.md
Normal file
16
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "North American DC-3"
|
||||
chunk: 3/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:41.394188+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Space Task Group ===
|
||||
On 12 February 1969 Richard Nixon formed the Space Task Group under the direction of Vice President Spiro Agnew, giving them the task of selecting missions for a post-Apollo NASA. Agnew quickly became a proponent of NASA's ambitious plans that would culminate in a Mars attempt. The Task Group's final report, delivered on 11 September 1969, outlined three broad plans; the first required funding at $8 to $10 billion a year and would fulfill all of NASA's goals, the second would reduce this to $8 billion or less if the crewed lunar orbiting station was dropped, and finally the third would require only $5 billion a year and would develop only the space stations and shuttle.
|
||||
At first Nixon did not comment on the plans. Later he demanded that the program be greatly reduced even from the smallest of the Task Group's proposals, forcing them to select either the space base or the shuttle. Discussing the problem, NASA engineers concluded that the development of a shuttle would lower the cost of launching portions of the space station, so it seemed that proceeding with the shuttle might make the future development of the station more likely. However, NASA's estimates of the shuttle development costs were met with great skepticism by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Studies by RAND in 1970 showed that there was no benefit to developing a reusable spacecraft when development costs were taken into account. The report concluded that a crewed station would be more cheaply supported with expendable boosters.
|
||||
By this time Paine had left NASA to return to General Electric, and had been replaced by the more pragmatic James Fletcher. Fletcher ordered independent reviews of the shuttle concept; Lockheed was to prepare a report on how the shuttle could reduce payload costs, Aerospace Corporation was to make an independent report on development and operational costs, and Mathematica would later combine these two into a final definitive report. Mathematica's report was extremely positive; it showed that development of a fully reusable design would lower the per-launch cost, thereby reducing payload costs and driving up demand. However, the report was based on a greatly increased rate of launch; inherent in the math was that lower launch rates would completely upset any advantage. Nevertheless, the report was extremely influential, and made the shuttle program an ongoing topic of discussion in Washington.
|
||||
Looking to shore up support for the program, Fletcher directed NASA to develop the shuttle to be able to support the Air Force's requirements as well, as initially developed in their "Class III" fully reusable vehicles. If the shuttle became vital to the Air Force as well as NASA, it would be effectively unkillable. The Air Force's requirements were based on a projected series of large spy satellites then under development, which were 60 feet long and weighed 40,000 lbs. They needed to be launched into polar orbits, corresponding to a normal launch from Kennedy Space Center (KSC) of 65,000 lbs (launches to the east receive a free boost from the Earth's natural rotation).
|
||||
The Air Force also demanded a cross-range capability of 1,500 miles, meaning that the spacecraft would have to be able to land at a point 1,500 miles (2,400 km) to either side of its orbital path when it started re-entry. This was due to the desire to be able to land again after one orbit, the so-called "orbit-once-around". This capacity was useful to NASA as well, as it made more abort possibilities available if needed.
|
||||
16
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-3.md
Normal file
16
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "North American DC-3"
|
||||
chunk: 4/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:41.394188+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== End of DC-3 ===
|
||||
The new cross-range requirements doomed the DC-3 design.
|
||||
Satellites orbit around the center of the Earth, not the surface. If a spacecraft were launched due East from the equator into a 90-minute low Earth orbit, it will circle the Earth and return to the spot where it was launched 90 minutes later. However, the launch site will have moved due to the Earth's rotation. Over the 90-minute period, the Earth would rotate 2,500 kilometres (1,600 miles) to the east, escaping from the spacecraft as it returns. Given the orbital speed about 28,000 kilometres per hour (17,000 mph), simply starting the re-entry about 5 minutes later than the complete 90-minute orbit would make up this difference.
|
||||
At Kennedy Space Center's 28.5° north latitude the situation is more complicated. Over the 90-minute orbit KSC will rotate about 1,350 miles (2,170 km). Unlike the equatorial orbit case, however, letting the spacecraft stay in the inclined orbit a little longer will start taking it south of the launch site (for the most efficient launch eastward, where the orbital inclination is equal to the launch latitude, making the launch point the most northerly of its ground path), its closest point of approach being about 300 miles (480 km) to the southwest. A spacecraft wishing to return to its launch site will need about 300 miles of cross-range maneuverability during re-entry, and the NASA shuttle designs demanded about 450 miles in order to have some working room.
|
||||
Polar orbits from the Air Force's Vandenberg Air Force Base are another matter entirely. At almost 35° N, the distance it would move over a single orbit would be slightly smaller than KSC, but critically, the shuttle would be traveling south, not east. This meant that it was not flying toward the launch point as it traveled in its orbit, and when it completed one orbit it would have to make up the entire 1,350 miles during re-entry. These missions required a dramatically improved cross-range capability, set at 1,500 miles to give it a slight reserve. The ballistic re-entry profile of the DC-3 series simply could not come close to matching this requirement.
|
||||
On 1 May 1971 the OMB finally released a budget plan, limiting NASA to $3.2 billion per year for the next five years. Given existing project budgets, this limited any spending on the shuttle to about $1 billion a year, far less than required to develop any of the completely reusable designs. Based on these constraints, NASA returned to a Class II-like vehicle with external tankage, which led to the MSC-020 design. Later that year all straight-wing designs were officially abandoned, although Faget's team continued to work on them for some time in spite of this.
|
||||
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-4.md
Normal file
26
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3-4.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "North American DC-3"
|
||||
chunk: 5/5
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_DC-3"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:41.394188+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Description ==
|
||||
The DC-3 was a two-stage vehicle with a large booster and smaller shuttle/orbiter of overall similar design. Both were similar to "jumbo jets" in layout in general terms, with their large cylindrical fuselage containing fuel tanks instead of passengers or cargo. The bottom of the fuselage was flattened for re-entry aerodynamics, with a slight upward toward the nose in early models. The wings were low-mounted, in-line with the bottom of the fuselage, with a 14 degree rearward sweep on the front and no sweep on the back. The general layout of the wing planform was similar to the original DC-3. The empennage was a conventional three-surface unit, although in the original MSC-001 design the delta-shaped horizontal stabilizer was located at the bottom of the fuselage and served double-duty in protecting the rear-mounted engines during re-entry. Later versions did not generally include this feature, and used more conventional surfaces mid-mounted on the fuselage.
|
||||
The orbiter carried a crew of two, and had accommodations for up to ten passengers. A cargo area was mounted in the middle of the craft between the liquid hydrogen (LH2) tank behind it, and a combined LH2/liquid oxygen tank in front of it. This arrangement was used in order to center the cargo over the wing, with the heavier oxygen and crew compartment balancing the weight of the engines. The lighter weight hydrogen then filled out the rest of the internal space. The booster had no cargo area, so it used a simpler arrangement of tankage with a single LH2 tank at the rear. The booster normally flew uncrewed, but included a two-person cockpit area that was used during ferry flights.
|
||||
The orbiter was powered by two modified XLR-129 engines with the thrust increased from 250,000 to 300,000 lbf, two 15,000 lbf RL-10 orbital manoeuvring engines, and six Rolls-Royce RB162 jet engines for landing. The booster used eleven of the same XLR-129 engines, and four Pratt & Whitney JT8D for landing. XLR-129s on both the shuttle and booster were fired for vertical take-off. The orbiter was mounted relatively far forward for launch, its tail in-line with the booster's wings. The combined weight at launch would be about 2,030 tons.
|
||||
The orbiter would re-enter nose-high at an angle of about 60 degrees above horizontal, decelerating at a peak of 2G until it reached low subsonic speeds at 40,000 ft. At this point the forward speed of the craft would be very low, so the nose was pitched down and the orbiter dove to pick up airspeed over the wings and transition to level flight. Expected re-entry heating rates on the orbiter were 1650 deg C on the leading edge, and 790 deg C over 80% of the lower surface.
|
||||
In order to maximize overall performance, the booster released the orbiter at Mach 10 and 45 miles altitude. This required the booster to carry a complete thermal protection system in order to re-enter for landing. Both the orbiter and booster were to be protected with the LI-1500 silica tiles similar to those eventually used on the Space Shuttle, a design that had recently been introduced by Lockheed and quickly became a baseline design for all of the shuttle contenders. As a result, both airframes were able to be built out of aluminum, greatly reducing airframe cost.
|
||||
Both craft carried just enough JP-4 for landing go-around. Both could also carry increased loads of JP-4 for test flights or ferrying. After dispatching the orbiter the booster would be too far down-range to easily turn around and return to Kennedy, so the normal mission profile had it coast across the ocean, land automatically, refuel and pick up a crew, and then be flown back to Kennedy on its JT8D engines.
|
||||
Lockheed estimated that development and initial production would cost $5.912 billion over a period from 1970 to 1975. A fleet of six orbiters and four boosters would have supported a launch rate of 50 flights per year.
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
Maxime Faget, "Space Shuttle: A New Configuration", Astronautics & Aeronautics, January 1970, p. 52
|
||||
Marcus Lindroos, "MSC/North America Concept-A, 'DC-3'", 21 January 2003 (has 4 refs)
|
||||
"Shuttle", astronautix.com Archived 2012-03-13 at the Wayback Machine
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
The DC-3 fully reusable Space Shuttle early concept, video rendering by Hazegrayart
|
||||
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shocker-0.md
Normal file
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shocker-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Operation Shocker"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shocker"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:30.349477+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Operation Shocker was a 23-year counterintelligence operation run by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation against the Soviet Union. The operation involved the fake defection in place of a US Army sergeant based in Washington, D.C. who, in return for hundreds of thousands of dollars over two decades, provided information to Soviet intelligence (GRU) as agreed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This included over 4,000 documents on a new nerve gas the US believed unweaponizable, with the US intending to waste Soviet resources.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Overview ==
|
||||
The operation began in 1959 when U.S. Army First Sergeant Joseph Edward Cassidy (1920-2011), assigned to the Army's nuclear power office near Washington, D.C., was approached (with Army permission) by the FBI. Cassidy, despite having no previous training, was able to make contact with a Soviet naval attache believed to be a spy, and set up an arrangement where he would provide information to the Soviets in exchange for money. Soviet requests for information were passed to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and various classified information provided as a result.
|
||||
The principal Russian interest was in information about the US nerve gas program, and Cassidy initially established his credentials by providing genuine data from the US program. By 1964 he was in a position to begin pointing Soviet research towards a G-series nerve agent, GJ, which the US thought could not be produced in stable, weaponizable form. Cassidy provided over 4,000 documents on a mixture of real and non-existent research into the new gas, with the US intending to waste Soviet resources attempting to duplicate the work. David Wise, in his book Cassidy's Run, implies that the Soviet program to develop the Novichok agents may have been an unintended result of the misleading information.
|
||||
The operation was highly classified, and when two FBI agents died in a plane crash while surveilling a Soviet spy, press and public were misled about the circumstances, and even the agents' families were told nothing for years.
|
||||
A similar, and arguably more significant, disinformation operation was run by the FBI via double-agent Dmitri Polyakov, feeding the Soviet Union the false information that the US was covertly continuing with its biological weapons program despite public announcements to the contrary. The disinformation may have been one reason which led the Soviet Union to expand its biological weapons program, and a near-universal belief into the 1990s among its scientists that they were mirroring US efforts.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Maneuvering_System-0.md
Normal file
28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Maneuvering_System-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Orbital Maneuvering System"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Maneuvering_System"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:42.636684+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) is a system of hypergolic liquid-propellant rocket engines used on the Space Shuttle and the Orion spacecraft. Designed and manufactured in the United States by Aerojet, the system allowed the orbiter to perform various orbital maneuvers according to requirements of each mission profile: orbital injection after main engine cutoff, orbital corrections during flight, and the final deorbit burn for reentry. From STS-90 onwards the OMS were typically ignited part-way into the Shuttle's ascent for a few minutes to aid acceleration to orbital insertion. Notable exceptions were particularly high-altitude missions such as those supporting the Hubble Space Telescope (STS-31) or those with unusually heavy payloads such as Chandra (STS-93). An OMS dump burn also occurred on STS-51-F, as part of the Abort to Orbit procedure.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Overview ==
|
||||
The OMS consists of two pods mounted on the orbiter's aft fuselage, on either side of the vertical stabilizer. Each pod contains a single AJ10-190 engine, based on the Apollo Service Module's Service Propulsion System engine, which produces 26.7 kilonewtons (6,000 lbf) of thrust with a specific impulse (Isp) of 316 seconds. The oxidizer-to-fuel ratio is 1.65-to-1, The expansion ratio of the nozzle exit to the throat is 55-to-1, and the chamber pressure of the engine is 8.6 bar. The dry weight of each engine is 118kg (260lb). Each engine could be reused for 100 missions and was capable of a total of 1,000 starts and 15 hours of burn time.
|
||||
These pods also contained the Orbiter's aft set of reaction control system (RCS) engines, and so were referred to as OMS/RCS pods. The OM engine and RCS both burned monomethylhydrazine (MMH) as fuel, which was oxidized with MON-3 (mixed oxides of nitrogen, 3% nitric acid), with the propellants being stored in tanks within the OMS/RCS pod, alongside other fuel and engine management systems. When full, the pods together carried around 4,087 kilograms (9,010 lb) of MMH and 6,743 kilograms (14,866 lb) of MON-3, allowing the OMS to produce a total delta-v of around 305 metres per second (1,000 ft/s) with a 29,000-kilogram (64,000 lb) payload.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Proposed OMS Payload Bay Kit ==
|
||||
It was never built, but to augment the OMS an OMS Payload Bay Kit was proposed. It would have used one, two or three sets of OMS tanks, installed in the payload bay, to provide an extra 150 m/s, 300 m/s or 450 m/s (490 ft/s, 980 ft/s or 1,500 ft/s) of delta-V to the orbiter. The orbiter control panels had related switches and gauges but they were nonfunctional.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Orion ESM main engine ==
|
||||
|
||||
Following the retirement of the Space Shuttle, these engines were repurposed for use on the Orion spacecraft's service module. This variant uses monomethylhydrazine as fuel, with MON-3 (mixed oxides of nitrogen) as oxidizer. It is planned to be used for the first six flights of the Artemis program; afterwards it would be replaced by a new "Orion Main Engine" starting with Artemis 7.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_Boom_Sensor_System-0.md
Normal file
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_Boom_Sensor_System-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Orbiter Boom Sensor System"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiter_Boom_Sensor_System"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:43.851887+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS) was a 50-foot (15.24 m) boom carried on board NASA's Space Shuttles. The boom was grappled by the Canadarm and served as an extension of the arm, doubling its length to a combined total of 100 feet (30 m). At the far end of the boom was an instrumentation package of cameras and lasers used to scan the leading edges of the wings, the nose cap, and the crew compartment after each lift-off and before each landing. If flight engineers suspected potential damage to other areas, as evidenced in imagery captured during lift-off or the rendezvous pitch maneuver, then additional regions could be scanned.
|
||||
The OBSS was introduced to the shuttle fleet with STS-114, the "Return to Flight" mission executed by Discovery, and was flown on every mission after that until the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet in 2011. It was used to inspect the shuttle for damage to the heat shield, officially called the Thermal Protection System (TPS), that could jeopardize the shuttle during re-entry. The decision to perform focused inspections of the TPS was prompted by the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, in which Columbia was destroyed due to damage inflicted to its TPS during launch. The OBSS was central to focused inspections of the TPS, not only because it carried all the instruments necessary for detailed measurements and observations, but also because without it, the Canadarm was too short to reach to all the areas that needed to be surveyed.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Description ==
|
||||
The boom was essentially the same design as the Canadarm itself, except that the articulatory joints are fixed. OBSS arms for the three remaining orbiters were manufactured relatively quickly, primarily because some spare parts for the Canadarm system were used.
|
||||
Two instrumentation packages are installed at the far end of the OBSS. Sensor package 1 consists of the Laser Dynamic Range Imager (LDRI) and an Intensified Television Camera (ITVC). Sensor package 2 is the Laser Camera System (LCS) and a digital camera (IDC). The sensors can record at a resolution of a few millimeters, and can scan at a rate of about 2.5 inches (64 mm) per second.
|
||||
It is also fitted with handrails, so that the boom could be used to provide spacewalkers with access to the shuttle's underbelly in case in-flight repairs were required.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== STS-120 ISS repair ==
|
||||
|
||||
During STS-120 the OBSS was used as an extension boom for the space station's Canadarm2, something it was never designed to do. During this mission the P6 solar array had become damaged during the redeploy. Canadarm2 grabbed the arm on its center Flight-Releasable Grapple Fixture and then astronaut Scott E. Parazynski was mounted at the end of the boom to make the repair. Because Canadarm2 was unable to power the OBSS, it was without power many hours more than it was designed to handle, but because it was heated up considerably before the start of the repair it stayed undamaged.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Enhanced ISS boom assembly ==
|
||||
Due to the benefits for spacewalkers from the extended range provided by connecting an OBSS to the International Space Station (ISS)'s robotic arm, NASA implemented a plan for STS-134 to leave its OBSS behind on the ISS, where it would permanently remain. The plan resulted in a number of modifications to the OBSS, now known as the Enhanced ISS Boom Assembly, including the addition of a Power Data and Grapple Fixture which enables mating to the robotic arm on the end of the boom with a Canadarm2-compatible grapple fixture to favor station use. The boom was stowed on the ISS S1 Integrated Truss Structure on the fourth spacewalk of STS-134 on May 27, 2011. The OBSS sensors were disconnected during the EVA, and are not designed to withstand thermal conditions outside the ISS without power to keep them warm. However, the modification of the grapple fixture could enable such equipment to be mounted onto the OBSS in the future.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
NASA -Space Shuttle page
|
||||
49
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Juno-0.md
Normal file
49
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Juno-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Project Juno"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Juno"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:55.062026+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Project Juno was a privately funded campaign which selected Helen Sharman to be the first Briton in space.
|
||||
As the United Kingdom did not, at that time, have a human spaceflight programme (until the UK joined the human spaceflight elements of ESA's exploration programme in December 2012, which led to Tim Peake's ESA mission in 2015), a private consortium was formed to raise money to pay the Soviet Union for a seat on a Soyuz mission to the Mir space station. The Soviet Union had recently flown Toyohiro Akiyama, a Japanese journalist, under a similar arrangement.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Selection ==
|
||||
A call for applicants was publicized in the UK (one ad read "Astronaut wanted. No experience necessary"), leading to 13,000 applications. Juno selected four candidates to train in the Soviet Union:
|
||||
|
||||
Gordon Brooks (Royal Navy physician, then 33)
|
||||
Major Timothy Mace (Army Air Corps, 33)
|
||||
Clive Smith (Kingston University lecturer, 27)
|
||||
Helen Sharman (food technologist, 26)
|
||||
The training process was documented in a Scottish Television documentary, 'Mission Juno', broadcast on 28th December 1989. Eventually Mace and Sharman were selected to continue full-time training at Star City. After learning Russian and familiarising themselves with the science programme, Smith and Brooks were employed to teach the other two how to perform the experiments and then to conduct them in a life sized mock up of Mir for live media during the mission.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Funding ==
|
||||
The cost of the flight was to be funded by various innovative schemes, including sponsoring by private British companies and a lottery system. Corporate sponsors included British Aerospace, Memorex, and Interflora, and television rights were sold to ITV.
|
||||
The flight cost £7 million.
|
||||
Ultimately the Juno consortium failed to raise the entire sum, and the Soviet Union considered cancelling the mission. However Mikhail Gorbachev directed the mission to proceed at Soviet cost. The ambitious microgravity experiments originally planned were dropped when time ran out for sending required equipment on an automated 'Progress' flight. Helen did perform experiments designed by British schools that could be done with existing equipment aboard Mir along with a British microbiology screening investigation taken over by the Russians.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Flight and after ==
|
||||
Sharman was launched aboard Soyuz TM-12 on 18 May 1991, and returned aboard Soyuz TM-11 on 26 May 1991.
|
||||
Both Sharman and Mace were candidates but not selected in the 1992 and 1998 European Space Agency selection rounds for its astronaut corps. Brooks was also put forward for the European Astronaut Corps in 1982, but dropped out when employed on AI systems elsewhere. Mace did not fly in space, but married the daughter of cosmonaut Vitali Zholobov. He was later the helicopter pilot for President of South Africa Nelson Mandela. He died in September 2014 from cancer.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
British National Space Centre
|
||||
British space programme
|
||||
British astronauts
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
BBC article
|
||||
Spacefacts bio of Timothy Mace
|
||||
Article about Gordon Brooks and Juno
|
||||
JUNO Amateur Radio Contacts with Schools
|
||||
23
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-0.md
Normal file
23
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "RS-25"
|
||||
chunk: 1/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:33.138292+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The RS-25, also known as the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), is a liquid-fuel cryogenic rocket engine that was used on NASA's Space Shuttle and is used on the Space Launch System.
|
||||
Designed and manufactured in the United States by Rocketdyne (later Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and Aerojet Rocketdyne), the RS-25 burns cryogenic (very low temperature) liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propellants, with each engine producing 1,859 kN (418,000 lbf) thrust at liftoff. Although RS-25 heritage traces back to the 1960s, its concerted development began in the 1970s with the first flight, STS-1, on April 12, 1981. The RS-25 has undergone upgrades over its operational history to improve the engine's thrust, reliability, safety, and maintenance load.
|
||||
The engine produces a specific impulse (Isp) of 452 seconds (4.43 kN⋅s/kg) in vacuum, or 366 seconds (3.59 kN⋅s/kg) at sea level, has a mass of approximately 3.5 tonnes (7,700 pounds), and is capable of throttling between 67% and 109% of its rated power level in one-percent increments. Components of the RS-25 operate at temperatures ranging from −253 to 3,300 °C (−400 to 6,000 °F).
|
||||
The Space Shuttle used a cluster of three RS-25 engines mounted at the stern of the orbiter, with fuel drawn from the external tank. The engines were used for propulsion throughout the spacecraft ascent, with total thrust increased by two solid rocket boosters and the orbiter's two AJ10 orbital maneuvering system engines. Following each flight, the RS-25 engines were removed from the orbiter, inspected, refurbished, and then reused on another mission.
|
||||
Four RS-25 engines are installed on each Space Launch System, housed in the engine section at the base of the core stage, and expended after use. The first four Space Launch System flights use modernized and refurbished engines built for the Space Shuttle program. Subsequent flights will make use of a simplified RS-25E engine called the Production Restart, which is under testing and development.
|
||||
|
||||
== Components ==
|
||||
|
||||
The RS-25 engine consists of pumps, valves, and other components working in concert to produce thrust. Fuel (liquid hydrogen) and oxidizer (liquid oxygen) from the Space Shuttle's external tank entered the orbiter at the umbilical disconnect valves and from there flowed through the orbiter's main propulsion system (MPS) feed lines; whereas in the Space Launch System (SLS), fuel and oxidizer from the rocket's core stage flow directly into the MPS lines. Once in the MPS lines, the fuel and oxidizer each branch out into separate paths to each engine (three on the Space Shuttle, four on the SLS). In each branch, pre-valves then allow the propellants to enter the engine.
|
||||
Once in the engine, the propellants flow through low-pressure fuel and oxidizer turbopumps (LPFTP and LPOTP), and from there into high-pressure turbopumps (HPFTP and HPOTP). From these HPTPs the propellants take different routes through the engine. The oxidizer is split into four separate paths: to the oxidizer heat exchanger, which then splits into the oxidizer tank pressurization and pogo suppression systems; to the low-pressure oxidizer turbopump (LPOTP); to the high-pressure oxidizer pre-burner, from which it is split into the HPFTP turbine and HPOTP before being reunited in the hot gas manifold and sent on to the main combustion chamber (MCC); or directly into the main combustion chamber (MCC) injectors.
|
||||
Meanwhile, fuel flows through the main fuel valve into regenerative cooling systems for the nozzle and MCC, or through the chamber coolant valve. The fuel passing through the MCC cooling system then passes back through the LPFTP turbine before being routed either to the fuel tank pressurization system or to the hot gas manifold cooling system (from where it passes into the MCC). Fuel in the nozzle cooling and chamber coolant valve systems is then sent via pre-burners into the HPFTP turbine and HPOTP before being reunited again in the hot gas manifold, from where it passes into the MCC injectors. Once in the injectors, the propellants are mixed and injected into the main combustion chamber where they are ignited. The ejection of the burning propellant mixture through the throat and bell of the engine's nozzle creates the thrust.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Turbopumps ===
|
||||
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-1.md
Normal file
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "RS-25"
|
||||
chunk: 2/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:33.138292+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
==== Oxidizer system ====
|
||||
The low-pressure oxidizer turbopump (LPOTP) is an axial-flow pump which operates at approximately 5,150 rpm driven by a six-stage turbine powered by high-pressure liquid oxygen from the high-pressure oxidizer turbopump (HPOTP). It boosts the liquid oxygen's pressure from 0.7 to 2.9 MPa (100 to 420 psi), with the flow from the LPOTP then being supplied to the HPOTP. During engine operation, the pressure boost permits the high-pressure oxidizer pump to operate at high speeds without cavitating. The LPOTP, which measures approximately 450 by 450 mm (18 by 18 in), is connected to the vehicle propellant ducting and supported in a fixed position by being mounted on the launch vehicle's structure.
|
||||
Then, mounted before the HPOTP, is the pogo oscillation suppression system accumulator. For use, it is pre-and post-charged with He and charged with gaseous O2 from the heat exchanger, and, not having any membrane, it operates by continuously recirculating the charge gas. A number of baffles of various types are present inside the accumulator to control sloshing and turbulence, which is useful of itself and also to prevent the escape of gas into the low-pressure oxidizer duct to be ingested in the HPOTP.
|
||||
The HPOTP consists of two single-stage centrifugal pumps (the main pump and a pre-burner pump) mounted on a common shaft and driven by a two-stage, hot-gas turbine. The main pump boosts the liquid oxygen's pressure from 2.9 to 30 MPa (420 to 4,350 psi) while operating at approximately 28,120 rpm, giving a power output of 23,260 hp (17.34 MW). The HPOTP discharge flow splits into several paths, one of which drives the LPOTP turbine. Another path is to, and through, the main oxidizer valve and enters the main combustion chamber. Another small flow path is tapped off and sent to the oxidizer heat exchanger. The liquid oxygen flows through an anti-flood valve that prevents it from entering the heat exchanger until sufficient heat is present for the heat exchanger to utilize the heat contained in the gases discharged from the HPOTP turbine, converting the liquid oxygen to gas. The gas is sent to a manifold and then routed to pressurize the liquid oxygen tank. Another path enters the HPOTP second-stage pre-burner pump to boost the liquid oxygen's pressure from 30 to 51 MPa (4,300 psia to 7,400 psia). It passes through the oxidizer pre-burner oxidizer valve into the oxidizer pre-burner and through the fuel pre-burner oxidizer valve into the fuel pre-burner. The HPOTP measures approximately 600 by 900 mm (24 by 35 in). It is attached by flanges to the hot-gas manifold.
|
||||
The HPOTP turbine and HPOTP pumps are mounted on a common shaft. Mixing of the fuel-rich hot gases in the turbine section and the liquid oxygen in the main pump can create a hazard and, to prevent this, the two sections are separated by a cavity that is continuously purged by the engine's helium supply during engine operation. Two seals minimize leakage into the cavity; one seal is located between the turbine section and the cavity, while the other is between the pump section and cavity. Loss of helium pressure in this cavity results in automatic engine shutdown.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Fuel system ====
|
||||
The low-pressure fuel turbopump (LPFTP) is an axial-flow pump driven by a two-stage turbine powered by gaseous hydrogen. It boosts the pressure of the liquid hydrogen from 30 to 276 psia (0.2 to 1.9 MPa) and supplies it to the high-pressure fuel turbopump (HPFTP). During engine operation, the pressure boost provided by the LPFTP permits the HPFTP to operate at high speeds without cavitating. The LPFTP operates at around 16,185 rpm, and is approximately 450 by 600 mm (18 by 24 in) in size. It is connected to the vehicle propellant ducting and is supported in a fixed position by being mounted to the launch vehicle's structure.
|
||||
The HPFTP is a three-stage centrifugal pump driven by a two-stage hot-gas turbine. It boosts the pressure of the liquid hydrogen from 1.9 to 45 MPa (276 to 6,515 psia), and operates at approximately 35,360 rpm with a power of 71,140 hp (53.05 MW). The discharge flow from the turbopump is routed to, and through, the main valve and is then split into three flow paths. One path is through the jacket of the main combustion chamber, where the hydrogen is used to cool the chamber walls. It is then routed from the main combustion chamber to the LPFTP, where it is used to drive the LPFTP turbine. A small portion of the flow from the LPFTP is then directed to a common manifold from all three engines to form a single path to the liquid hydrogen tank to maintain pressurization. The remaining hydrogen passes between the inner and outer walls of the hot-gas manifold to cool it and is then discharged into the main combustion chamber. A second hydrogen flow path from the main fuel valve is through the engine nozzle (to cool the nozzle). It then joins the third flow path from the chamber coolant valve. This combined flow is then directed to the fuel and oxidizer pre-burners. The HPFTP is approximately 550 by 1,100 mm (22 by 43 in) in size and is attached to the hot-gas manifold by flanges.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Powerhead ===
|
||||
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-2.md
Normal file
24
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "RS-25"
|
||||
chunk: 3/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:33.138292+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
==== Preburners ====
|
||||
The oxidizer and fuel pre-burners are welded to the hot-gas manifold. The fuel and oxidizer enter the pre-burners and are mixed so that efficient combustion can occur. The augmented spark igniter is a small combination chamber located in the center of the injector of each pre-burner. Two dual-redundant spark igniters are activated by the engine controller and are used during the engine start sequence to initiate combustion in each pre-burner. They are turned off after approximately three seconds because the combustion process is then self-sustaining. The pre-burners produce the fuel-rich hot gases that pass through the turbines to generate the power needed to operate the high-pressure turbopumps. The oxidizer pre-burner's outflow drives a turbine that is connected to the HPOTP and to the oxidizer pre-burner pump. The fuel pre-burner's outflow drives a turbine that is connected to the HPFTP.
|
||||
The speed of the HPOTP and HPFTP turbines depends on the position of the corresponding oxidizer and fuel pre-burner oxidizer valves. These valves are positioned by the engine controller, which uses them to throttle the flow of liquid oxygen to the pre-burners and, thus, control engine thrust. The oxidizer and fuel pre-burner oxidizer valves increase or decrease the liquid oxygen flow, thus increasing or decreasing pre-burner chamber pressure, HPOTP and HPFTP turbine speed, and liquid oxygen and gaseous hydrogen flow into the main combustion chamber, which increases or decreases engine thrust. The oxidizer and fuel pre-burner valves operate together to throttle the engine and maintain a constant 6.03:1 propellant mixture ratio.
|
||||
The main oxidizer and main fuel valves control the flow of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen into the engine and are controlled by each engine controller. When an engine is operating, the main valves are fully open.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Main combustion chamber ====
|
||||
The engine's main combustion chamber (MCC) receives fuel-rich hot gas from a hot-gas manifold cooling circuit. The gaseous hydrogen and liquid oxygen enter the chamber at the injector, which mixes the propellants. The mixture is ignited by the "Augmented Spark Igniter", an H2/O2 flame at the center of the injector head. The main injector and dome assembly are welded to the hot-gas manifold, and the MCC is also bolted to the hot-gas manifold. The MCC comprises a structural shell made of Inconel 718 which is lined with a copper-silver-zirconium alloy called NARloy-Z, developed specifically for the RS-25 in the 1970s. Around 390 channels are machined into the liner wall to carry liquid hydrogen through the liner to provide MCC cooling, as the temperature in the combustion chamber reaches 3,300 °C (5,970 °F) during flight – higher than the boiling point of iron.
|
||||
An alternative for the construction of RS-25 engines to be used in SLS missions is the use of advanced structural ceramics, such as thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) and ceramic-matrix composites (CMCs). These materials possess significantly lower thermal conductivities than metallic alloys, thus allowing more efficient combustion and reducing the cooling requirements. TBCs are thin ceramic oxide layers deposited on metallic components, acting as a thermal barrier between hot gaseous combustion products and the metallic shell. A TBC applied to the Inconel 718 shell during production could extend engine life and reduce cooling costs. Further, CMCs have been studied as a replacement for Ni-based superalloys and are composed of high-strength fibers (BN, C) continuously dispersed in a SiC matrix. An MCC composed of a CMC, though less studied and farther from fruition than the application of a TBC, could offer unprecedented levels of engine efficiency.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Nozzle ===
|
||||
|
||||
The engine's nozzle is 121 in (3.1 m) long with a diameter of 10.3 inches (0.26 m) at its throat and 90.7 inches (2.30 m) at its exit. The nozzle is a bell-shaped extension bolted to the main combustion chamber, referred to as a de Laval nozzle. The RS-25 nozzle has an unusually large expansion ratio (about 69:1) for the chamber pressure. At sea level, a nozzle of this ratio would normally undergo flow separation of the jet from the nozzle, which would cause control difficulties and could even mechanically damage the vehicle. However, to aid the engine's operation Rocketdyne engineers varied the angle of the nozzle walls from the theoretical optimum for thrust, reducing it near the exit. This raises the pressure just around the rim to an absolute pressure between 4.6 and 5.7 psi (32 and 39 kPa), and prevents flow separation. The inner part of the flow is at much lower pressure, around 2 psi (14 kPa) or less. The inner surface of each nozzle is cooled by liquid hydrogen flowing through brazed stainless steel tube wall coolant passages. On the Space Shuttle, a support ring welded to the forward end of the nozzle is the engine attach point to the orbiter-supplied heat shield. Thermal protection is necessary because of the exposure portions of the nozzles experience during the launch, ascent, on-orbit and entry phases of a mission. The insulation consists of four layers of metallic batting covered with a metallic foil and screening.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Controller ===
|
||||
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-3.md
Normal file
30
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "RS-25"
|
||||
chunk: 4/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:33.138292+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Each engine is equipped with a main engine controller (MEC), an integrated computer which controls all of the engine's functions (through the use of valves) and monitors its performance. Built by Honeywell Aerospace, each MEC originally comprised two redundant Honeywell HDC-601 computers, later upgraded to a system composed of two doubly redundant Motorola 68000 (M68000) processors (for a total of four M68000s per controller). Having the controller installed on the engine itself greatly simplifies the wiring between the engine and the launch vehicle, because all the sensors and actuators are connected directly to only the controller, each MEC then being connected to the orbiter's general purpose computers (GPCs) or the SLS's avionics suite via its own engine interface unit (EIU). Using a dedicated system also simplifies the software and thus improves its reliability.
|
||||
Two independent dual-CPU computers, A and B, form the controller; giving redundancy to the system. The failure of controller system A automatically leads to a switch-over to controller system B without impeding operational capabilities; the subsequent failure of controller system B would provide a graceful shutdown of the engine. Within each system (A and B), the two M68000s operate in lock-step, thereby enabling each system to detect failures by comparing the signal levels on the buses of the two M68000 processors within that system. If differences are encountered between the two buses, then an interrupt is generated and control turned over to the other system. Because of subtle differences between M68000s from Motorola and the second source manufacturer TRW, each system uses M68000s from the same manufacturer (for instance system A would have two Motorola CPUs while system B would have two CPUs manufactured by TRW). Memory for block I controllers was of the plated-wire type, which functions in a manner similar to magnetic core memory and retains data even after power is turned off. Block II controllers used conventional CMOS static RAM.
|
||||
The controllers were designed to be tough enough to survive the forces of launch and proved to be extremely resilient to damage. During the investigation of the Challenger accident the two MECs (from engines 2020 and 2021), recovered from the seafloor, were delivered to Honeywell Aerospace for examination and analysis. One controller was broken open on one side, and both were severely corroded and damaged by marine life. Both units were disassembled and the memory units flushed with deionized water. After they were dried and vacuum baked, data from these units was retrieved for forensic examination.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Main valves ====
|
||||
To control the engine's output, the MEC operates five hydraulically actuated propellant valves on each engine; the oxidizer pre-burner oxidizer, fuel pre-burner oxidizer, main oxidizer, main fuel, and chamber coolant valves. In an emergency, the valves can be fully closed by using the engine's helium supply system as a backup actuation system.
|
||||
In the Space Shuttle, the main oxidizer and fuel bleed valves were used after shutdown to dump any residual propellant, with residual liquid oxygen venting through the engine and residual liquid hydrogen venting through the liquid hydrogen fill and drain valves. After the dump was completed, the valves closed and remained closed for the remainder of the mission.
|
||||
A coolant control valve is mounted on the combustion chamber coolant bypass duct of each engine. The engine controller regulates the amount of gaseous hydrogen allowed to bypass the nozzle coolant loop, thus controlling its temperature. The chamber coolant valve is 100% open before the engine start. During engine operation, it is 100% open for throttle settings of 100 to 109%. For throttle settings between 65 and 100%, its position ranged from 66.4 to 100%.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Gimbal ===
|
||||
|
||||
Each engine is installed with a gimbal bearing, a universal ball and socket joint which is bolted to the launch vehicle by its upper flange and to the engine by its lower flange. It represents the thrust interface between the engine and the launch vehicle, supporting 7,480 lb (3,390 kg) of engine weight and withstanding over 500,000 lbf (2,200,000 N) of thrust. As well as providing a means to attach the engine to the launch vehicle, the gimbal bearing allows the engine to be pivoted (or "gimballed") around two axes of freedom with a range of ±10.5°. This motion allows the engine's thrust vector to be altered, thus steering the vehicle into the correct orientation. The comparatively large gimbal range is necessary to correct for the pitch momentum that occurs due to the constantly shifting center of mass as the vehicle burns fuel in flight and after booster separation. The bearing assembly is approximately 290 by 360 mm (11 by 14 in), has a mass of 105 lb (48 kg), and is made of titanium alloy.
|
||||
The low-pressure oxygen and low-pressure fuel turbopumps were mounted 180° apart on the orbiter's aft fuselage thrust structure. The lines from the low-pressure turbopumps to the high-pressure turbopumps contain flexible bellows that enable the low-pressure turbopumps to remain stationary while the rest of the engine is gimbaled for thrust vector control, and also to prevent damage to the pumps when loads were applied to them. The liquid-hydrogen line from the LPFTP to the HPFTP is insulated to prevent the formation of liquid air.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Helium system ===
|
||||
In addition to fuel and oxidizer systems, the launch vehicle's main propulsion system is also equipped with a helium system consisting of ten storage tanks in addition to various regulators, check valves, distribution lines, and control valves. The system is used in-flight to purge the engine and provides pressure for actuating engine valves within the propellant management system and during emergency shutdowns. During entry, on the Space Shuttle, any remaining helium was used to purge the engines during reentry and for repressurization.
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Development ===
|
||||
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-4.md
Normal file
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-4.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "RS-25"
|
||||
chunk: 5/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:33.138292+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The history of the RS-25 traces back to the 1960s when NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and Rocketdyne were conducting a series of studies on high-pressure engines, developed from the successful J-2 engine used on the S-II and S-IVB upper stages of the Saturn V rocket during the Apollo program. The studies were conducted under a program to upgrade the Saturn V engines, which produced a design for a 350,000 lbf (1,600 kN) upper-stage engine known as the HG-3. As funding levels for Apollo wound down the HG-3 was cancelled as well as the upgraded F-1 engines already being tested. It was the design for the HG-3 that would form the basis for the RS-25.
|
||||
Meanwhile, in 1967, the US Air Force funded a study into advanced rocket propulsion systems for use during Project Isinglass, with Rocketdyne asked to investigate aerospike engines and Pratt & Whitney (P&W) to research more efficient conventional de Laval nozzle-type engines. At the conclusion of the study, P&W put forward a proposal for a 250,000 lbf engine called the XLR-129, which used a two-position expanding nozzle to provide increased efficiency over a wide range of altitudes.
|
||||
In January 1969 NASA awarded contracts to General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and North American Rockwell to initiate the early development of the Space Shuttle. As part of these 'Phase A' studies, the involved companies selected an upgraded version of the XLR-129, developing 415,000 lbf (1,850 kN), as the baseline engine for their designs. This design can be found on many of the planned Shuttle versions right up to the final decision. However, since NASA was interested in pushing the state of the art in every way they decided to select a much more advanced design in order to "force an advancement of rocket engine technology". They called for a new design based on a high-pressure combustion chamber running around 3,000 psi (21,000 kPa), which increases the performance of the engine.
|
||||
Development began in 1970, when NASA released a request for proposal for 'Phase B' main engine concept studies, requiring development of a throttleable, staged combustion, de Laval-type engine. The request was based on the then-current design of the Space Shuttle which featured two reusable stages, the orbiter and a crewed fly-back booster, and required one engine which would be able to power both vehicles via two different nozzles (12 booster engines with 550,000 lbf (2,400 kN) sea level thrust each and 3 orbiter engines with 632,000 lbf (2,810 kN) vacuum thrust each). Rocketdyne, P&W and Aerojet General were selected to receive funding although, given P&W's already-advanced development (demonstrating a working 350,000 lbf (1,600 kN) concept engine during the year) and Aerojet General's prior experience in developing the 1,500,000 lbf (6,700 kN) M-1 engine, Rocketdyne was forced to put a large amount of private money into the design process to allow the company to catch up to its competitors.
|
||||
By the time the contract was awarded, budgetary pressures meant that the shuttle's design had changed to its final orbiter, external tank, and two boosters configuration, and so the engine was only required to power the orbiter during ascent. During the year-long 'Phase B' study period, Rocketdyne was able to make use of their experience developing the HG-3 engine to design their SSME proposal, producing a prototype by January 1971. The engine made use of a new Rocketdyne-developed copper-zirconium alloy (called NARloy-Z) and was tested on February 12, 1971, producing a chamber pressure of 3,172 psi (21,870 kPa). The three participating companies submitted their engine development bids in April 1971, with Rocketdyne being awarded the contract on July 13, 1971—although work did not begin on engine development until March 31, 1972, due to a legal challenge from P&W.
|
||||
Following the awarding of the contract, a preliminary design review was carried out in September 1972, followed by a critical design review in September 1976 after which the engine's design was set and construction of the first set of flight-capable engines began. A final review of all the Space Shuttle's components, including the engines, was conducted in 1979. The design reviews operated in parallel with several test milestones, initial tests consisting of individual engine components which identified shortcomings with various areas of the design, including the HPFTP, HPOTP, valves, nozzle, and fuel pre-burners. The individual engine component tests were followed by the first test of a complete engine (0002) on March 16, 1977, after its final assembly line was established in the main Rocketdyne factory in Canoga Park, Los Angeles. NASA specified that, prior to the Shuttle's first flight, the engines must have undergone at least 65,000 seconds of testing, a milestone that was reached on March 23, 1980, with the engine having undergone 110,253 seconds of testing by the time of STS-1 both on test stands at Stennis Space Center and installed on the Main Propulsion Test Article (MPTA). The first set of engines (2005, 2006 and 2007) was delivered to Kennedy Space Center in 1979 and installed on Columbia, before being removed in 1980 for further testing and reinstalled on the orbiter. The engines, which were of the first manned orbital flight (FMOF) configuration and certified for operation at 100% rated power level (RPL), were operated in a twenty-second flight readiness firing on February 20, 1981, and, after inspection, declared ready for flight.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Space Shuttle program ===
|
||||
28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-5.md
Normal file
28
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-5.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "RS-25"
|
||||
chunk: 6/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:33.138292+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Each Space Shuttle had three RS-25 engines, installed in the aft structure of the Space Shuttle orbiter in the Orbiter Processing Facility prior to the orbiter being transferred to the Vehicle Assembly Building. If necessary, the engines could be changed on the pad. The engines, drawing propellant from the Space Shuttle external tank (ET) via the orbiter's main propulsion system (MPS), were ignited at T−6.6 seconds prior to liftoff (with each ignition staggered by 120 ms), which allowed their performance to be checked prior to ignition of the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), which committed the shuttle to the launch. At launch, the engines would be operating at 100% RPL, throttling up to 104.5% immediately following liftoff. The engines would maintain this power level until around T+40 seconds, where they would be throttled back to around 70% to reduce aerodynamic loads on the shuttle stack as it passed through the region of maximum dynamic pressure, or max. q. The engines would then be throttled back up until around T+8 minutes, at which point they would be gradually throttled back down to 67% to prevent the stack exceeding 3 g of acceleration as it became progressively lighter due to propellant consumption. The engines were then shut down, a procedure known as main engine cutoff (MECO), at around T+8.5 minutes.
|
||||
After each flight the engines would be removed from the orbiter and transferred to the Space Shuttle Main Engine Processing Facility (SSMEPF), where they would be inspected and refurbished in preparation for reuse on a subsequent shuttle flight. A total of 46 reusable RS-25 engines, each costing around US$40 million, were flown during the Space Shuttle program, with each new or overhauled engine entering the flight inventory requiring flight qualification on one of the test stands at the Stennis Space Center prior to flight.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Upgrades ====
|
||||
|
||||
Over the course of the Space Shuttle program, the RS-25 went through a series of upgrades, including combustion chamber changes, improved welds and turbopump changes in an effort to improve the engine's performance and reliability and so reduce the amount of maintenance required after use. As a result, several versions of the RS-25 were used during the program:
|
||||
|
||||
FMOF (first manned orbital flight): Certified for 100% rated power level (RPL). Used for the orbital flight test missions STS-1 – STS-5 (engines 2005, 2006 and 2007).
|
||||
Phase I: Used for missions STS-6 – STS-51-L, the Phase I engine offered increased service life and was certified for 104% RPL. Replaced by Phase II after the Challenger Disaster.
|
||||
Phase II (RS-25A): First flown on STS-26, the Phase II engine offered a number of safety upgrades and was certified for 104% & 109% RPL (full power level, FPL) in the event of a contingency.
|
||||
Block I (RS-25B): First flown on STS-70, the Block I engines offered improved turbopumps featuring ceramic bearings, half as many rotating parts, and a new casting process reducing the number of welds. Block I improvements also included a new, two-duct powerhead (rather than the original design, which featured three ducts connected to the HPFTP and two to the HPOTP), which helped improve hot gas flow, and an improved engine heat exchanger.
|
||||
Block IA (RS-25B): First flown on STS-73, the Block IA engine offered main injector improvements.
|
||||
Block IIA (RS-25C): First flown on STS-89, the Block IIA engine was an interim model used whilst certain components of the Block II engine completed development. Changes included a new large throat main combustion chamber (which had originally been recommended by Rocketdyne in 1980), improved low-pressure turbopumps, and certification for 104.5% RPL to compensate for a 2 seconds (0.020 km/s) reduction in specific impulse (original plans called for the engine to be certified to 106% for heavy International Space Station payloads, but this was not required and would have reduced engine service life). A slightly modified version first flew on STS-96.
|
||||
Block II (RS-25D): First flown on STS-104, the Block II upgrade included all of the Block IIA improvements plus a new high-pressure fuel turbopump. This model was ground-tested to 111% RPL in the event of a contingency abort, and certified for 109% RPL for use during an intact abort.
|
||||
RS-25E: A variant in development. It is planned to be used on the Space Launch System for future Artemis program missions beginning with Artemis V, as the RS-25D stock is gradually being expended on SLS flights (the core stage is disposed in the atmosphere, along with the engines). Unlike previous versions, this engine is designed to be expendable. The powerhead is almost completely redesigned (as of September 2023 the specific design changes from the RS-25D have not been announced), and intended to incorporate various cost-saving measures and innovations in manufacturing. The first testing engine, E10001, passed all its qualifications and tests at NASA's Stennis Space Center, and demonstrated operation at 113% RPL.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Engine throttle/output ====
|
||||
The most obvious effects of the upgrades the RS-25 received through the Space Shuttle program were the improvements in engine throttle. Whilst the FMOF engine had a maximum output of 100% (RPL), Block II engines could throttle as high as 109% or 111% in an emergency, with usual flight performance being 104.5%. Existing engines used on the Space Launch System are throttled to 109% RPL during normal flight, while new RS-25E engines produced for the Space Launch System can be run at 111% RPL, with 113% throttle being tested. These increases in throttle level made a corresponding difference to the thrust produced by the engine:
|
||||
41
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-6.md
Normal file
41
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-6.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "RS-25"
|
||||
chunk: 7/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:33.138292+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Specifying power levels over 100% may seem nonsensical, but there was a logic behind it. The 100% level does not mean the maximum physical power level attainable, rather it was a specification decided on during engine development—the expected rated power level. When later studies indicated the engine could operate safely at levels above 100%, these higher levels became standard. Maintaining the original relationship of power level to physical thrust helped reduce confusion, as it created an unvarying fixed relationship so that test data (or operational data from past or future missions) can be easily compared. If the power level was increased, and that new value was said to be 100%, then all previous data and documentation would either require changing or cross-checking against what physical thrust corresponded to 100% power level on that date. Engine power level affects engine reliability, with studies indicating the probability of an engine failure increasing rapidly with power levels over 104.5%, which was why power levels above 104.5% were retained for contingency use only.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Incidents ====
|
||||
|
||||
During the course of the Space Shuttle program, a total of 46 RS-25 engines were used (with one extra RS-25D being built but never used). During the 135 missions, for a total of 405 individual engine-missions, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne reports a 99.95% reliability rate, with the only in-flight SSME failure occurring during Space Shuttle Challenger's STS-51-F mission. The engines, however, did suffer from a number of pad failures (redundant set launch sequencer aborts, or RSLSs) and other issues during the course of the program:
|
||||
|
||||
STS-41-D Discovery – No. 3 engine caused an RSLS shutdown at T−4 seconds due to loss of redundant control on main engine valve, stack rolled back and engine replaced.
|
||||
STS-51-F Challenger – No. 2 engine caused an RSLS shutdown at T−3 seconds due to a coolant valve malfunction.
|
||||
STS-51-F Challenger – No. 1 engine (2023) shutdown at T+5:43 due to faulty temperature sensors, leading to an abort to orbit (although the mission objectives and length were not compromised by the ATO).
|
||||
STS-55 Columbia – No. 3 engine caused an RSLS shutdown at T−3 seconds due to a leak in its liquid-oxygen preburner check valve.
|
||||
STS-51 Discovery – No. 2 engine caused an RSLS shut down at T−3 seconds due to a faulty hydrogen fuel sensor.
|
||||
STS-68 Endeavour – No. 3 engine (2032) caused an RSLS shutdown at T−1.9 seconds when a temperature sensor in its HPOTP exceeded its redline.
|
||||
STS-93 Columbia – An Orbiter Project AC1 Phase A electrical wiring short occurred at T+5 seconds causing an under voltage which disqualified SSME 1A and SSME 3B controllers but required no engine shut down. In addition, a 0.1-inch diameter, 1-inch long gold-plated pin, used to plug an oxidizer post orifice (an inappropriate SSME corrective action eliminated from the fleet by redesign) came loose inside an engine's main injector and impacted the engine nozzle inner surface, rupturing three hydrogen cooling lines. The resulting three breaches caused a leak resulting in a premature engine shutdown, when four external tank LO2 sensors flashed dry resulting in low-level cutoff of the main engines and a slightly early main engine cut-off with a 16 ft/s (4.9 m/s) underspeed, and an 8 nautical mile lower altitude.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Constellation program ===
|
||||
|
||||
During the period preceding final Space Shuttle retirement, various plans for the remaining engines were proposed, ranging from them all being kept by NASA, to them all being given away (or sold for US$400,000–800,000 each) to various institutions such as museums and universities. This policy followed changes to the planned configurations of the Constellation program's Ares V cargo-launch vehicle and Ares I crew-launch vehicle rockets, which had been planned to use the RS-25 in their first and second stages respectively. While these configurations had initially seemed worthwhile, as they would use then-current technology following the shuttle's retirement in 2010, the plan had several drawbacks:
|
||||
|
||||
The engines would not be reusable, as they would be permanently attached to the discarded stages and disposed of in the atmosphere.
|
||||
Each engine would have to undergo a test firing prior to installation and launch, with refurbishment required following the test.
|
||||
It would be expensive, time-consuming, and weight-intensive to convert the ground-started RS-25D to an air-started version for the Ares I second stage.
|
||||
Following several design changes to the Ares I and Ares V rockets, the RS-25 was replaced with a single J-2X engine for the Ares I second stage and six modified RS-68 engines (which was based on both the SSME and Apollo-era J-2 engine) on the Ares V core stage; these changes meant that the RS-25 would be retired along with the Shuttle fleet. In 2010, however, NASA was directed to halt the Constellation program, and with it development of the Ares I and Ares V, instead of focusing on building a new heavy-lift launcher.
|
||||
|
||||
=== XS-1 ===
|
||||
|
||||
On May 24, 2017, DARPA announced that they had selected The Boeing Company to complete design work on the XS-1 program. The technology demonstrator was planned to use an Aerojet Rocketdyne AR-22 engine. The AR-22 was a version of the RS-25, with parts sourced from Aerojet Rocketdyne and NASA inventories from early versions of the engine. In July 2018 Aerojet Rocketdyne successfully completed ten 100-second firings of the AR-22 in ten days.
|
||||
On January 22, 2020, Boeing announced its departure from the XS-1 program, leaving no role for the AR-22.
|
||||
|
||||
== Present use ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Space Launch System ===
|
||||
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-7.md
Normal file
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-7.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "RS-25"
|
||||
chunk: 8/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:33.138292+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
On 14 September 2011, following the retirement of the Space Shuttle, NASA announced that it would be developing a new launch vehicle, known as the Space Launch System (SLS), to replace the shuttle fleet. The design for the SLS features the RS-25 as part of its core stage, with different versions of the rocket being equipped with between three and five engines. The initial flights of the new launch vehicle are making use of previously flown Block II RS-25D engines, with NASA keeping such engines in a "purged safe" environment at Stennis Space Center, "along with all of the ground systems required to maintain them." For Artemis I, the RS-25D units with serial numbers E2045, E2056, E2058, and E2060 from all three orbiters were used. They were installed on the core stage by November 6, 2019. For Artemis II, the units with serial numbers E2047, E2059, E2062, and E2063 were slated to be used. They were installed on the core stage by September 25, 2023. In spring 2025, engine E2063 was replaced with E2061 after a leak was discovered in its oxygen valve hydraulics.
|
||||
In addition to the RS-25Ds, the SLS program makes use of the Main Propulsion Systems (MPS, the "plumbing" feeding the engines) from the three remaining shuttle orbiters for testing purposes (having been removed as part of the orbiters' decommissioning), with the first two launches (Artemis I and Artemis II) originally predicted to make use of the MPS hardware from Space Shuttles Atlantis and Endeavour in their core stages. The SLS's propellants are supplied to the engines from the rocket's core stage, which consists of a modified Space Shuttle external tank with the MPS plumbing and engines at its aft, and an interstage structure at the top.
|
||||
|
||||
For the first two Artemis missions, the engines were installed on the SLS core stage in Building 103 of the Michoud Assembly Facility; they will be installed in the Space Station Processing Facility at Kennedy beginning with Artemis III.
|
||||
Once the remaining RS-25Ds are exhausted, they are to be replaced with a cheaper, expendable version designated the RS-25E. In 2023, Aerojet Rocketdyne reported reductions in manufacturing time and labor requirements during manufacturing of new-production RS-25 engines, such as a 15% reduction in fabrication time for the powerhead and a 22-month reduction in the time needed to produce a main combustion chamber.
|
||||
On 1 May 2020, NASA awarded a contract extension to manufacture 18 additional RS-25 engines, with associated services, for $1.79 billion, bringing the total SLS contract value to almost $3.5 billion.
|
||||
On 29 August 2022, Artemis I was delayed by a problem with engineering sensors on RS-25D #3 (serial number E2058) erroneously reporting that it hadn't chilled down to its ideal operating temperature.
|
||||
On 16 November 2022, Artemis I launched from Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39B, the first time the RS-25 engine had flown since the Space Shuttle's final flight, STS-135, on 21 July 2011.
|
||||
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-8.md
Normal file
35
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25-8.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "RS-25"
|
||||
chunk: 9/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-25"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:21:33.138292+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
==== Engine tests ====
|
||||
In 2015, a test campaign was conducted to determine RS-25 engine performance with a new engine controller unit, under lower liquid-oxygen temperatures, with greater inlet pressure due to the taller SLS core-stage liquid-oxygen tank and higher vehicle acceleration; and with more nozzle heating due to the four-engine configuration and its position in-plane with the SLS booster exhaust nozzles. New ablative heat-shield insulation was to be tested as well. Tests occurred on January 9 (500 seconds), May 28 (450 seconds), June 11 (500 seconds), June 25 (650 seconds), July 17 (535 seconds), August 13 (535 seconds) and August 27 (535 seconds).
|
||||
Following these tests, four more engines were scheduled to enter a new test cycle. A new series of tests designed to evaluate performance in SLS-use cases was initiated in 2017.
|
||||
On February 28, 2019, NASA conducted a 510-second test burn of a developmental RS-25 at 113 percent of its originally designed thrust for more than 430 seconds, about four times longer than any prior test at this thrust level.
|
||||
On January 16, 2021, the RS-25 engines were fired again, during a hot-fire test as part of the Artemis program. The test was originally scheduled as an 8-minute test but was terminated at the 67th second due to intentionally conservative test parameters being breached in the hydraulic system of Engine 2's (serial number E2056) Core Stage Auxiliary Power Unit (CAPU) during the thrust vector control (TVC) system test. Engine 2's CAPU was shut down automatically, although if this issue had occurred during flight, it would not have caused an abort, as the remaining CAPUs are capable of powering the TVC systems of all four engines. The engine also suffered a different "Major Component Failure", in the engine control system, that was caused by instrumentation failure. This would have triggered an abort of the launch countdown during an actual launch attempt.
|
||||
On March 18, 2021, the four RS-25 core-stage engines were once again fired as part of the second SLS core stage hot-fire test, which lasted the full duration of 500 seconds, successfully certifying the Artemis I core stage for flight.
|
||||
On December 14, 2022, a single development RS-25E, serial number E10001, attempted a 500-second hot-fire test. The test aborted at T+209.5 due to test systems subsequently interpreting signals from a group of improperly configured accelerometers during the hot fire as exceeding acceptable vibration limits. Tests of the engine continued in 2023; on February 8, 2023, it was fired for 500 seconds at 111% power, fitted with a new-production nozzle. Subsequent tests included a 600-second test at 111% power on February 22, a 520-second test at 113% power on March 8, a 600-second test at 113% power on March 21, a 500-second, 113% power level test on April 5, a 720-second fire that tested the engine's thrust vectoring gimbal system on April 26, a 630-second test on May 10, and five more 500-second, 113% power level tests without gimbaling on May 23, June 1, June 8, June 15, and June 22.
|
||||
The RS-25E developmental unit E0525, with significant inclusion of new components including a redesigned nozzle, hydraulic actuators, flex ducts and turbopumps, was hot fire tested to 111% power levels for 550 seconds in the first in a series of certification tests beginning October 17, 2023. It was tested to 113% power levels for 500 seconds on November 15, and to 113% for 650 seconds with gimbaling on November 29, 2023, to 113% for 500 seconds on January 17, 2024, January 23, and January 29, to 113% for 550 seconds on February 23, to 111% for 615 seconds on February 29, and to 113% for 600 seconds on March 6 and 500 seconds on March 22 and 27, and April 3.
|
||||
On February 20, 2025, engine no. E20001 was installed at the test stand, the first full production RS-25E to undergo testing. It was tested to 111% power levels for 500 seconds on June 20. On November 12, the second production RS-25E, serial number E20002, was tested to the same levels and time limit.
|
||||
On January 22, 2026, the RS-25D engine with serial number E2063 was successfully tested to 109% power levels for 300 seconds, to validate post-repair work in its oxygen valve hydraulics and clear it for assignment to Artemis IV.
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Shuttle-C
|
||||
RD-0120
|
||||
|
||||
== Notes ==
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Spherical panoramas of RS-25D in SSME Processing Facility prior to shipping to Stennis Space Center
|
||||
Lawrence J. Thomson Collection, The University of Alabama in Huntsville Archives and Special Collections Files of Lawrence J. Thomson, chief engineer for the SSME from 1971 to 1986
|
||||
Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) No. TX-116-I, "Space Transportation System, Space Shuttle Main Engine, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, Harris County, TX", 20 photos, 2 measured drawings, 8 photo caption pages
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Russian NBC Protection Troops"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_NBC_Protection_Troops"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:26.748091+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Troops of Radiological, Chemical and Biological Defence of the Russian Armed Forces (Russian: Войска радиационной, химической и биологической защиты Вооружённых сил Российской Федерации, abbr. Войска РХБ защиты ВС РФ, romanized: Voyska radiatsionnoy khimicheskoy i biologicheskoy zashchiti Vooruzhyonnykh sil Rossiyskoy Federatsii, Voyska RKhB zashchiti VS RF) are an organisation designed to reduce the losses of the Ground Forces and ensuring their combat tasks assigned during operations in conditions of radioactive, chemical and biological contamination, as well as at enhancing their survivability and protection against high-precision and other weapons.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
|
||||
In 1944, the Red Army's Chemical Troops had 19 brigades (14 technical and five chemical protection). After the end of World War II, most of them were disbanded.
|
||||
General Major Vladimir Pikalov (promoted to Colonel General by 1975) commanded the Chemical Troops of the Ministry of Defence from March 1968 to December 1988. He was in charge of the specialised military units at the site of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster. Pikalov arrived at the scene on the afternoon of 26 April 1986, and assumed command of the specialised military units there. General Pikalov was later made a Hero of the Soviet Union for his actions there.
|
||||
Among the 23 brigades of the Chemical Troops in the late 1980s were the 1st Brigade at Shikhany-2 (Vol'sk-18), two kilometres from Shikhany, in the Saratov Oblast of the Volga Military District, 2nd Brigade at Teikovo in the Moscow Military District, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 16th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, and the 29th located in Severodonetsk in the Kyiv Military District.
|
||||
In 1992, the Chemical Troops within the Russian Armed Forces were renamed the NBC Protection Troops.
|
||||
Shikhany-2, the military chemical base, and Shikhany-4, the arsenal, are located in Saratov Oblast. Shikhany-4 appears to be the location of the 115th Arsenal of the Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection Troops.
|
||||
On 17 December 2024, the Commander of the RKhB Defence Troops, lieutenant general Igor Kirillov, was killed in a bombing in Moscow.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Structure and tasks ==
|
||||
|
||||
The basis of the NBC Protection Troops are multifunctional separate NBCP brigades which have subunits capable to perform all NBC protection activities. The Russians know them as Radiological, Chemical and Biological (RKhB) troops. They often work within a combined arms army. Their main tasks include:
|
||||
|
||||
identification and assessment of radiological, chemical and biological environment, scales and effects of damages of objects hazardous radiatively, chemically and biologically;
|
||||
protection of formations and units against the nuclear effects of mass destruction weapons and radiological, chemical and biological contamination;
|
||||
reducing the visibility of troops and facilities;
|
||||
disaster (damage) recovery in objects hazardous radiatively, chemically and biologically;
|
||||
causing loss to the enemy by using flame-incendiary means.
|
||||
The NBC Protection Troops are organised for both conduct of hostilities using nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and without them and includes:
|
||||
|
||||
nuclear detection;
|
||||
NBC reconnaissance and control;
|
||||
collection and processing of data and information on radiological, chemical and biological environment;
|
||||
notification of troops on NBC contamination;
|
||||
conducting special treatment (decontamination, degassing and disinfection) of armaments, military and special equipment, buildings and other objects, as well as sanitisation of personnel;
|
||||
aerosol counteraction against the enemy’s reconnaissance and targeting means.
|
||||
The NBCP Troops are developing as dual-purpose forces, able to solve tasks both in war and peace times, in the aftermath of accidents and disasters in industrial facilities hazardous radiatively, chemically and biologically. Further build-up of their capacity is realized by creating a modern system to identify and assess the extent and effects of weapons of mass destruction, integrated with automated control systems of troops and weapons and stable functioning in the NBC threat environment and strong electronic countermeasures. In addition, there is a process to equip formations, units and subdivisions of NBCP with new, highly effective means of NBC reconnaissance, individual and collective defence, technical means of reducing the visibility and masking, flame-throwing incendiary weapons, as well as to introduce improved materials, formulations, methods and technical means of decontamination.
|
||||
The 395th Independent Test Aviation Squadron which supports the NBCP Troops is based at Bagay-Baranovka in Saratov Oblast.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Hardware ==
|
||||
|
||||
What follows is a partial list as of November 2018 of military hardware available to the Russian NBCP troops:
|
||||
|
||||
RPO-A Shmel infantry rocket flamethrower
|
||||
PMK-4 gas mask
|
||||
TOS-1 Buratino or TOS-1A Solntsepyok flamethrower
|
||||
TOS-2 Tosochka flamethrower
|
||||
TDA-3 smoke generator on a 3-axle 53501 Kamaz chassis, is designed to camouflage military facilities
|
||||
TMS-65 is a specialized chemical vehicle on Ural-375 undercarriage
|
||||
RKhM-6 is a chemical reconnaissance vehicle on a four-axle BTR-80 base
|
||||
RPM-2 is a radiological reconnaissance vehicle on a four-axle BTR-80 base
|
||||
UTM-80 heat engine, designed to clean other equipment after exposure to NCB threats
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Units ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Videogallery ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
ru:Центральный военно-химический склад № 136 (Central Military Chemical Warehouse No. 136,) Kambarka, Udmurtia
|
||||
ru:Химическое оружие России
|
||||
ru:Чапаевский завод по уничтожению химического оружия
|
||||
NBC Protection Military Academy
|
||||
Canadian Joint Incident Response Unit
|
||||
2nd Dragoon Regiment (France)
|
||||
United States Army CBRN School
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
This article incorporates text by Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
|
||||
|
||||
Feskov, V.I.; Golikov, V.I.; Kalashnikov, K.A.; Slugin, S.A. (2013). Вооруженные силы СССР после Второй Мировой войны: от Красной Армии к Советской [The Armed Forces of the USSR after World War II: From the Red Army to the Soviet: Part 1 Land Forces] (in Russian). Tomsk: Scientific and Technical Literature Publishing. ISBN 9785895035306.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Media related to NBC Protection Troops of the Russian Armed Forces at Wikimedia Commons
|
||||
31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin-0.md
Normal file
31
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Sarin"
|
||||
chunk: 1/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:27.945210+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Sarin (NATO designation GB short for G-series, B) is an extremely toxic organophosphorus compound that has been often used as a chemical weapon due to its extreme potency as a nerve agent.
|
||||
Sarin is a volatile, colorless and odorless liquid. Exposure can be lethal even at very low concentrations, and death can occur within one to ten minutes after direct inhalation of a lethal dose due to suffocation from respiratory paralysis, unless antidotes are quickly administered. Those who absorb a non-lethal dose and do not receive immediate medical treatment may still suffer permanent neurological damage.
|
||||
Sarin is widely considered a weapon of mass destruction. Production and stockpiling of sarin was outlawed as of April 1997 by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and it is classified as a Schedule 1 substance.
|
||||
|
||||
== Health effects ==
|
||||
|
||||
Like some other nerve agents that affect the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, sarin attacks the nervous system by interfering with the degradation of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine at neuromuscular junctions. Death usually occurs as a result of asphyxia due to the inability to control the muscles involved in breathing.
|
||||
Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest, and constriction of the pupils (miotic action). Soon after, the person will have difficulty breathing and experience nausea and drooling. This progresses to losing control of bodily functions, which may cause the person to vomit, defecate, and urinate. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the person becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms. Common mnemonics for the symptomatology of organophosphate poisoning, including sarin, are the "killer Bs" of bronchorrhea and bronchospasm because they are the leading cause of death, and SLUDGE – salivation, lacrimation, urination, defecation, gastrointestinal distress, and emesis (vomiting). Death may follow in one to ten minutes after direct inhalation, but may also occur after a delay ranging from hours to several weeks in cases where exposure is limited but no antidote is applied.
|
||||
Sarin has a high volatility (ease with which a liquid can turn into vapour) relative to similar nerve agents, making inhalation very easy. It may even absorb through the skin. A person's clothing can release sarin for about 30 minutes after it has come in contact with sarin gas, which can lead to its exposure to other people.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Management ===
|
||||
Treatment measures have been described. Treatment is typically with the antidotes atropine and pralidoxime. Atropine, an antagonist to muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, is given to treat the physiological symptoms of poisoning. Since muscular response to acetylcholine is mediated through nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, atropine does not counteract the muscular symptoms. Pralidoxime can regenerate cholinesterases if administered within approximately five hours. Biperiden, a synthetic acetylcholine antagonist, has been suggested as an alternative to atropine due to its better blood–brain barrier penetration and higher efficacy.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Mechanism of action ===
|
||||
Sarin is a potent inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme that degrades the neurotransmitter acetylcholine after it is released into the synaptic cleft. In vertebrates, acetylcholine is the neurotransmitter used at the neuromuscular junction, where signals are transmitted between neurons from the peripheral nervous system to muscle fibres. Normally, acetylcholine is released from the neuron to stimulate the muscle, after which it is degraded by acetylcholinesterase, allowing the muscle to relax. A build-up of acetylcholine in the synaptic cleft, due to the inhibition of acetylcholinesterase, means the neurotransmitter continues to act on the muscle fibre, so that any nerve impulses are effectively continually transmitted.
|
||||
Sarin acts on acetylcholinesterase by forming a covalent bond with the particular serine residue at the active site. Fluoride is the leaving group, and the resulting organo-phosphoester is robust and biologically inactive.
|
||||
Its mechanism of action resembles that of some commonly used insecticides, such as malathion. In terms of biological activity, it resembles carbamate insecticides, such as Sevin, and the medicines pyridostigmine, neostigmine, and physostigmine.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Diagnostic tests ===
|
||||
Controlled studies in healthy men have shown that a nontoxic 0.43 mg oral dose administered in several portions over a 3-day interval caused average maximum depressions of 22 and 30%, respectively, in plasma and erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase levels. A single acute 0.5 mg dose caused mild symptoms of intoxication and an average reduction of 38% in both measures of acetylcholinesterase activity. Sarin in blood is rapidly degraded either in vivo or in vitro. Its primary inactive metabolites have in vivo serum half-lives of approximately 24 hours. The serum level of unbound isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA), a sarin hydrolysis product, ranged from 2–135 μg/L in survivors of a terrorist attack during the first four hours post-exposure. Sarin or its metabolites may be determined in blood or urine by gas or liquid chromatography, while acetylcholinesterase activity is usually measured by enzymatic methods.
|
||||
A newer method called "fluoride regeneration" or "fluoride reactivation" detects the presence of nerve agents for a longer period after exposure than the methods described above. Fluoride reactivation is a technique that has been explored since at least the early 2000s. This technique obviates some of the deficiencies of older procedures. Sarin not only reacts with the water in the blood plasma through hydrolysis (forming so-called 'free metabolites'), but also reacts with various proteins to form 'protein adducts'. These protein adducts are not so easily removed from the body, and remain for a longer period of time than the free metabolites. One clear advantage of this process is that the period, post-exposure, for determination of sarin exposure is much longer, possibly five to eight weeks according to at least one study.
|
||||
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin-1.md
Normal file
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Sarin"
|
||||
chunk: 2/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:27.945210+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Toxicity ===
|
||||
As a nerve gas, sarin in its purest form is estimated to be 26 times more deadly than cyanide. The LD50 of subcutaneously injected sarin in mice is 172 μg/kg.
|
||||
Sarin is highly toxic, whether by contact with the skin or breathed in. The toxicity of sarin in humans is largely based on calculations from studies with animals. The lethal concentration of sarin in air is approximately 28–35 mg per cubic meter per minute for a two-minute exposure time by a healthy adult breathing normally (exchanging 15 liters of air per minute, lower 28 mg/m3 value is for general population). This number represents the estimated lethal concentration for 50% of exposed victims, the LCt50 value. The LCt95 or LCt100 value is estimated to be 40–83 mg per cubic meter for exposure time of two minutes. Calculating effects for different exposure times and concentrations requires following specific toxic load models. In general, brief exposures to higher concentrations are more lethal than comparable long time exposures to low concentrations. There are many ways to make relative comparisons between toxic substances. The list below compares sarin to some current and historic chemical warfare agents, with a direct comparison to the respiratory LCt50:
|
||||
|
||||
Hydrogen cyanide, 2,860 mg/(min·m3) – Sarin is 81 times more lethal
|
||||
Phosgene, 1,500 mg/(min·m3) – Sarin is 43 times more lethal
|
||||
Sulfur mustard, 1,000 mg/(min·m3) – Sarin is 28 times more lethal
|
||||
Chlorine, 19,000 mg/(min·m3) – Sarin is 543 times more lethal
|
||||
|
||||
== Production and structure ==
|
||||
Sarin is a chiral molecule because it has four chemically distinct substituents attached to the tetrahedral phosphorus center. The SP form (the (–) optical isomer) is the more active enantiomer due to its greater binding affinity to acetylcholinesterase.
|
||||
It is almost always manufactured as a racemic mixture (a 1:1 mixture of its enantiomeric forms) as this involves a much simpler synthesis while providing an adequate weapon.
|
||||
A number of production pathways can be used to create sarin. The final reaction typically involves attachment of the isopropoxy group to the phosphorus with an alcoholysis with isopropyl alcohol. Two variants of this final step are common. One is the reaction of methylphosphonyl difluoride with isopropyl alcohol, which produces a racemic mixture of sarin enantiomers with hydrofluoric acid as a byproduct:
|
||||
|
||||
The second process, known as the "Di-Di" process, uses equimolar quantities of methylphosphonyl difluoride (Difluoro) and methylphosphonyl dichloride (Dichloro). This reaction gives sarin, hydrochloric acid and other minor byproducts. The Di-Di process was used by the United States for the production of its unitary sarin stockpile.
|
||||
The scheme below shows a generic example that employs the Di-Di method as the final esterification step; in reality, the selection of reagents and reaction conditions dictate both product structure and yield. The choice of enantiomer of the mixed chloro fluoro intermediate displayed in the diagram is arbitrary, but the final substitution is selective for chloro over fluoro as the leaving group. Inert atmosphere and anhydrous conditions (Schlenk techniques) are used for synthesis of sarin and other organophosphates.
|
||||
|
||||
As both reactions leave considerable acid in the product, sarin produced in bulk by these methods has a short half-life without further processing, and would be corrosive to containers and damaging to weapons systems. Various methods have been tried to resolve these problems. In addition to industrial refining techniques to purify the chemical itself, various additives have been tried to combat the effects of the acid, such as:
|
||||
|
||||
Tributylamine was added to US sarin produced at Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
|
||||
Triethylamine was added to UK sarin, with relatively poor success. The Aum Shinrikyo cult experimented with triethylamine as well.
|
||||
N,N-Diethylaniline was used by Aum Shinrikyo for acid reduction.
|
||||
Ammonia gas was used by Nazi Germany as a non-additive stabilizer at RVIII Raubkammer, with success. Recovered artillery munitions filled with sarin from RVIII Raubkammer, in Munster, abandoned for half a century, showed a sarin concentration of over 80%.
|
||||
N,N′-Diisopropylcarbodimide was added to sarin produced at Rocky Mountain Arsenal to combat corrosion.
|
||||
Isopropylamine was included as part of the M687 155 mm field artillery shell, which was a binary sarin weapon system developed by the US Army.
|
||||
Another byproduct of these two chemical processes is diisopropyl methylphosphonate, formed when a second isopropyl alcohol reacts with the sarin itself and from disproportionation of sarin, when distilled incorrectly. The factor of its formation in esterification is that as the concentration of DF-DCl decreases, the concentration of sarin increases, the probability of DIMP formation is greater. DIMP is a natural impurity of sarin, that is almost impossible to be eliminated, mathematically, when the reaction is a 1 mol-1 mol "one-stream".
|
||||
|
||||
(CH3)2CHO− + CH3P(O)FOCH(CH3)2 → CH3P(O)(OCH(CH3)2)2 + F−
|
||||
|
||||
== Degradation and shelf life ==
|
||||
20
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin-2.md
Normal file
20
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Sarin"
|
||||
chunk: 3/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:27.945210+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Degradation of phosphoryl halides begins with hydrolysis of the bond between phosphorus and the fluorine atom. This P-F bond is easily broken by nucleophilic agents through a SN2 mechanism, such as water and hydroxide. At high pH, sarin decomposes rapidly to relatively nontoxic phosphonic acid derivatives. The initial breakdown of sarin is into isopropyl methylphosphonic acid (IMPA), a chemical that is not commonly found in nature except as a breakdown product of sarin (this is useful for detecting the recent deployment of sarin as a weapon). IMPA then degrades into methylphosphonic acid (MPA), which can also be produced by other organophosphates.
|
||||
Sarin with residual acid degrades after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life can be shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA, some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors.
|
||||
Along with nerve agents such as tabun and VX, sarin can have a short shelf life. Therefore, it is usually stored as two separate precursors that produce sarin when combined. Sarin's shelf life can be extended by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediates and incorporating stabilizers such as tributylamine. In some formulations, tributylamine is replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), allowing sarin to be stored in aluminium casings. In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of solving the stability issue and increasing the safety of sarin munitions.
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
Sarin was discovered in 1938 in Wuppertal-Elberfeld in Germany by scientists at IG Farben who were attempting to create stronger pesticides; it is the most toxic of the four G-Series nerve agents made by Germany. The compound, which followed the discovery of the nerve agent tabun, was named in honor of its discoverers: chemist Gerhard Schrader, chemist Otto Ambros, chemist Gerhard Ritter, and from Heereswaffenamt Hans-Jürgen von der Linde.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Use as a weapon ===
|
||||
In mid-1939, the formula for the agent was passed to the chemical warfare section of the German Army Weapons Office, which ordered that it be brought into mass production for wartime use. Pilot plants were built, and a production facility was under construction (but was not finished) by the end of World War II. Estimates for total sarin production by Nazi Germany range from 500 kg to 10 tons.
|
||||
Though sarin, tabun, and soman were incorporated into artillery shells, Germany did not use nerve agents against Allied targets. Adolf Hitler refused to initiate the use of gases such as sarin as weapons.
|
||||
41
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin-3.md
Normal file
41
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Sarin"
|
||||
chunk: 4/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:27.945210+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
1950s (early): NATO adopted sarin as a standard chemical weapon. The USSR and the United States produced sarin for military purposes.
|
||||
1953: 20-year-old Ronald Maddison, a Royal Air Force engineer from Consett, County Durham, died in human testing of sarin at the Porton Down chemical warfare testing facility in Wiltshire, England. Ten days after his death an inquest was held in secret which returned a verdict of misadventure. In 2004, the inquest was reopened and, after a 64-day inquest hearing, the jury ruled that Maddison had been unlawfully killed by the "application of a nerve agent in a non-therapeutic experiment".
|
||||
1957: Regular production of sarin chemical weapons ceased in the United States, though existing stocks of bulk sarin were re-distilled until 1970.
|
||||
1970: During Operation Tailwind, America may have deployed sarin against the Communist Pathet Lao, alongside American defectors to the Laotian Communists.
|
||||
1976: Chile's intelligence service, DINA, assigned biochemist Eugenio Berríos to develop Sarin gas within its program Proyecto Andrea, to be used as a weapon against its opponents. One of DINA's goals was to package it in spray cans for easy use, which, according to testimony by former DINA agent Michael Townley, was one of the planned procedures in the 1976 assassination of Orlando Letelier. Berríos later testified that it was used in a number of assassinations and it was planned to be used to kill inhabitants, through poisoning the water supply of Argentine capital Buenos Aires, in case Operation Soberanía took place.
|
||||
March 1988: Halabja chemical attack; Over two days in March, the ethnic Kurdish city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded by Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Air Force jets with chemical bombs including sarin. An estimated 5,000 people died, almost all civilians.
|
||||
April 1988: Iraq used Sarin four times against Iranian soldiers at the end of the Iran–Iraq War, helping Iraqi forces to retake control of the al-Faw Peninsula during the Second Battle of al-Faw.
|
||||
1993: The United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by 162 member countries, banning the production and stockpiling of many chemical weapons, including sarin. It went into effect on April 29, 1997, and called for the complete destruction of all specified stockpiles of chemical weapons by April 2007. When the convention entered force, the parties declared worldwide stockpiles of 15,047 tonnes of sarin. As of November 28, 2019, 98% of the stockpiles have been destroyed.
|
||||
1994: Matsumoto incident; the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo released an impure form of sarin in Matsumoto, Nagano, killing eight people and harming over 500. The Australian sheep station Banjawarn was a testing ground.
|
||||
1995: Tokyo subway sarin attack; the Aum Shinrikyo cult released an impure form of sarin in the Tokyo Metro. Thirteen people died, and over 6,200 people received injuries.
|
||||
2002: Pro-Chechen militant Ibn al-Khattab may have been assassinated with sarin by the Russian government.
|
||||
May 2004: Iraqi insurgents detonated a 155 mm shell containing binary precursors for sarin near a U.S. convoy in Iraq. The shell was designed to mix the chemicals as it spun during flight. The detonated shell released only a small amount of sarin gas, either because the explosion failed to mix the binary agents properly or because the chemicals inside the shell had degraded with age. Two United States soldiers were treated after displaying the early symptoms of exposure to sarin.
|
||||
March 2013: Khan al-Assal chemical attack; Sarin was used in an attack on a town west of Aleppo city in Syria, killing 28 and wounding 124.
|
||||
August 2013: Ghouta chemical attack; Sarin was used in multiple simultaneous attacks in the Ghouta region of the Rif Dimashq Governorate of Syria during the Syrian Civil War. Varying sources gave a death toll of 322 to 1,729.
|
||||
April 2017: Khan Shaykhun chemical attack: The Syrian Air Force released sarin gas in rebel-held Idlib Province in Syria during an airstrike.
|
||||
April 2018: Victims of the Douma chemical attack in Syria reported to have symptoms consistent with exposure to sarin and other agents. On July 6, 2018, the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the OPCW published their interim report. The report stated that, "The results show that no organophosphorous [sarin] nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties". The chemical agent used in the attack was later identified as elemental chlorine.
|
||||
July 2023: The U.S. destroyed the last of its declared chemical weapons, a sarin nerve agent-filled M55 rocket, on July 7, 2023.
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Chlorosarin
|
||||
Ethylsarin
|
||||
Thiosarin
|
||||
Gulf War syndrome
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Material Safety Data Sheet
|
||||
CIA memo: The Stability of Iraq's Chemical Weapons Stockpile
|
||||
CDC Sarin fact sheet
|
||||
CDC Sarin Emergency Response Card
|
||||
52
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sever_(spacecraft)-0.md
Normal file
52
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sever_(spacecraft)-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Sever (spacecraft)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sever_(spacecraft)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:05.747828+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Soyuz Sever, also spelled Soyuz Siber, (translates to Soyuz north), was an early (1959–1962) design of the Soyuz spacecraft. The Soyuz Sever design of a crewed spacecraft started the Soyuz programme. In 1956, the Soyuz Sever spacecraft was proposed as the replacement for the Vostok spacecraft. Vostok spacecraft had only a crew of one; the Soyuz Sever plan would have crew of three. Sever was planned to be launched on a R7 rocket or Vostok rocket. The Sever plans were made by the Experimental Design Bureau (OKB-1) of the Soviet Union. While the Sever spacecraft was never built and launched, many of the designs and testing outcomes became part of the first generation Soyuz spacecraft, Soyuz 7K-OK and the Soyuz 1 mission launched on 23 April 1967. Sever (Sever ferry) final plan was to take crews to a Sever space station, OS-1962.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Design ==
|
||||
On 1 March 1959 the first proposal of OKB-1's engineer, Konstantin Feoktistov was for Sever to be twice as large as the final Soyuz spacecraft. The larger size was so Sever could be part of the Soviet future lunar program, the L4-1960 crewed lunar orbiter proposal. This was changed by August 1959 so Sever would become a small (Soyuz size) three-man spacecraft. In 1961, OKB-1 had several new designs for such a spacecraft: Sever, and competing designs: Sever L1-1960 became crewed obiter Soyuz-A, Soyuz-B (orbital tug), Soyuz-V, and Vostok-Zh (also called Vostok-7 in some sources, not to be confused with the proposed Vostok flight of the same name). One of the Sever designs would use a lifting body for lift off Earth to reduce crew G forces, as The Spaceship Company does and land more like the Space Shuttle. In 1961, Sever was still a part of the future lunar program. Other plans for Soyuz Sever was a crewed orbital space tug version, so spacecraft could be assembled in low earth orbit. This could be used as step to the moon. The assembled craft would have five rocket boosters assembled together to give enough power to go the moon. This plan was not taken up. There are two Sever versions known: one with one solar array and docking end-first, and one with two solar arrays and front-first docking (both requiring EVA to transfer crew). In 1961 Konstantin Vershinin, commander-in-chief of the Soviet Air Force, setup new requirements for the next generation spacecraft: crew of 2 cosmonauts, launch mass of 5896 to 6350 kg, able to manoeuvre at altitudes of 270 km to 300 km, restartable engines, 15 to 20 days duration, redundant communication radios, in a pressurized re-entry space capsule. Soviet engineer, Vladimir Chelomey, was still pushing for the lifting body spaceplane, but his plan was rejected. On 10 February 1962 a mockup-prototype of the Sever spacecraft with two crew members was completed and a 15-day test was started. The test was planned and led by chief spacecraft designer, Grigoriy Ivanovich Voronin at GKNII in Akhtubinsk. The 1962 proposal included L1-1962, a crewed lunar flyby spacecraft. Some of the 1962 L1-1962 proposal became part of the Soyuz spacecraft.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Designated Sever proposals ==
|
||||
Some of the Sever proposals were formalized and given designated projects numbers:
|
||||
|
||||
L1-1960 Sever crewed circumlunar spacecraft proposal from 1960. This became the Soyuz-A design. L1-1960 was proposed by Sergei Korolev in January 1960. The L1-1960 was a planned three crewed 5,000 to 6,000 kg spacecraft that would loop around the moon and then back to earth in 1964, first achieved with crew by Apollo 8's lunar orbit in 1968. The L1-1960 would use the N1 rocket that had started planning in May 1961 but had not started development until October 1965.
|
||||
L4-1960 Sever crewed lunar orbiter proposal from 1960 with a gross mass of 12,000 kg, proposed by Korolev in January 1960. The L4-1960 lunar orbiter would be two times the size of the L1-1960. The L4-1960 would also use the N1 rocket. The L4-1960 would have had a payload of 6,000 to 8,000 kg.
|
||||
L1-1962 Sever crewed lunar flyby spacecraft proposal from 1962 with a gross mass of 16,500 kg. The L1-1962 was planned to use a Vostok-Zh (or Vostok-7, a modernized Vostok 3KA) spacecraft as a manned space tug piloted by a 'cosmonaut assemblyman' to assemble a three stage circumlunar complex in earth orbit via in-orbit rendezvous with each component launched by multiple R-7 derived rockets. Following the assembly of the lunar complex in earth orbit, the Vostok-Zh spacecraft would return to earth and a separately launched Soyuz L1 (later developing into the Soyuz 7K-L1) spacecraft with a crew of one to three cosmonauts would dock with the lunar complex and travel to the moon, each stage firing in sequence for translunar injection. The Vostok-Zh spacecraft was also planned to be used to assemble the three-part Sever earth observatory, OS-1962, with the Vostok-Zh to be the ferry craft to take crews to and from the spacestation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== OS-1962 space station ==
|
||||
Part of the Soviet space station Sever project was the planning of a crewed space station, the OS-1962 design plan (Orbital Station 1962). Korolev approved the OS-1962 project called the "Complex docking of spacecraft in earth orbit - Soyuz" on 10 March 1962. The plan also included the L1-1960, circumlunar spacecraft proposal project. The OS-1962 space station plan called for station with a gross mass of 13,500 kg. The OS-1962 plan first had the large spacecraft, which was later reduced by half. The space station was to be placed in orbit with three R-7 rocket launches and a Vostok-Zh (Vostok-7) spacecraft. OS-1962 was to be a platform for earth observation. The OS-1962 space station would have ZhO living section, the BAA scientific apparatus block, and the Sever (Soyuz) spacecraft docked to the space station. The OS-1962 station had four solar arrays for power. While OS-1962 was not built some of its designs were used in later space stations. The OP space station (1962), OS-1 space station (1965), Soyuz R space station (1966) and MKBS space station (1974) also were not built. Salyut 1 later became the Soviet Union's first space station in 1971.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Gallery ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
|
||||
List of space stations
|
||||
Soviet crewed lunar programs
|
||||
Comparison of crewed space vehicles
|
||||
Soyuz 7K-LOK
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
The R7 based Crewed Lunar Mission "Sever" youtube.com
|
||||
RSC Energia: Concept Of Russian Manned Space Navigation Development
|
||||
Mir Hardware Heritage
|
||||
David S.F. Portree, Mir Hardware Heritage, NASA RP-1357, 1995
|
||||
Information on Soyuz spacecraft
|
||||
NASA - Russian Soyuz TMA Spacecraft Details Archived 24 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine
|
||||
Space Adventures circum-lunar mission - details
|
||||
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikhany-0.md
Normal file
40
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikhany-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Shikhany"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikhany"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:19:29.134883+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Shikhany, also spelled Shikhansky (Russian: Шиханы) is a closed town in Saratov Oblast, Russia, 130 kilometers (81 mi) north of Saratov on the right bank of the Volga River Population: 6,067 (2010 census); 6,738 (2002 census); 12,763 (1989 Soviet census).. It has been a closed town since 1997, but lost this status on 1 January 2019. The town is 2 kilometres from the major chemical weapons base Shikhany-2 (previously known as Vol'sk-18).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
The original settlement at Shikhany was founded in 1820 as part of the estate of Count Vasily Vasil'evich Orlov-Denisov. The first school was opened at the site in 1876. By 1917, there were still only five inhabitants resident in two houses. The subsequent expansion of the settlement was presumably a consequence of the opening of the adjacent chemical warfare establishment. On 30 June 1997, the town was transformed by an edict of President Yeltsin into a Closed Administrative-Territorial Formation (ZATO). Under the terms of this edict, travel to Shikhany was restricted and special police, procuracy and courts operated directly under Moscow jurisdiction. This status was revoked on 1 January 2019.
|
||||
The town comprises Shikhany-1, the town proper, Shikhany-2, the military chemical base, and Shikhany-4, the arsenal. Shikhany-4 appears to be the location of the 115th Arsenal of the Russian Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection Troops.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Shikhany-2 (Vol'sk-18) ===
|
||||
|
||||
The military chemical base at Shikany-2 (previously known as Vol'sk-18) has a long history. At the end of 1927, a secret Soviet–German agreement was reached concerning the construction of a joint chemical warfare experimental establishment at the site. Under the Versailles Treaty, Germany was forbidden from undertaking tests with chemical warfare agents or developing associated delivery systems. Collaboration with the Soviet Union was viewed as a useful means of concealing such activities from the eyes of the Western allies. The Shikhany-2 site was located 15 kilometres from the town of Vol'sk. It had been selected as early as 1924 to become a centre of Soviet chemical warfare activities. Under the terms of the agreement with the Germans, the Tomka project was created with the aim of both producing chemical weapons and operating experimental establishments at the site. The main focus of the Tomka project was on mustard gas, the climate at Shikhany being well suited for studying the field behaviours of the gas. Studies were also made of its toxicology. Stores for the joint project, including huts for accommodation, were transferred from Berlin to Shikhany. By the summer of 1928, chemical warfare field trials were fully underway. During the period through to 1931, around thirty German staff were based at Shikhany. The Tomka project was terminated in the spring of 1933.
|
||||
After the departure of the German scientists, the Soviet military remained at the Shikhany-2 site, and the proving grounds and other facilities were now officially designated as the Central Army Chemical Proving Ground (TsVKhP). The area of the site increased from its original 100 square kilometres to 600 square kilometres by 1938. A further expansion in size took place in 1941–1942, by which time the site occupied 1,000 square kilometres. By 1940, Shikhany incorporated large laboratories occupying nine to ten buildings, workshops, garages, stalls for animals, barracks, a building for the commander and his subordinates, an airfield with hangars, a gas school with spacious instruction halls, a military hospital and buildings for the production of chemical warfare agents. The staff at this time comprised a Major General, 100 other officers, 850 non-commissioned officers and 250 scientists and related personnel. During the Second World War, Soviet POWs who had been employed at Shikhany revealed to German intelligence that trials had been undertaken during the period 1939–1943 to test the dispersion of various chemical warfare agents in aerial bombs and aircraft sprayers. Beginning in 1934, trials were also conducted in great secrecy of simulants of biological weapons at Shikhany. Soviet POWs revealed to their German captors that these BW trials continued through to at least December 1940.
|
||||
On 6 August 1987, chemical weapons negotiators at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva were invited to visit the Soviet military chemical establishment at Shikhany. During the period 3–4 October 1987, Colonel General Vladimir Karpovich Pikalov hosted foreign disarmament negotiators at the proving ground. The guests are reported to have been shown a range of chemical munitions and during their visit a rabbit was injected with sarin extracted from a bomb to demonstrate that it was real. The rabbit is reported to have died instantly and then the weapon was destroyed.
|
||||
The following institutions and military units are currently reported to be located within Shikhany-2: the USSR Ministry of Defence's Order of the Red Banner of Labour 33rd Central Scientific-Research Experimental Institute (33rd TsNII); the proving ground of the 33rd TsNII; the 16th Central Military Clinical Hospital; Secondary School No. 44 of the Russian Ministry of Defence; School of Music; 2 kindergartens; 2 hotels; and officers quarters including a cinema. In 2004 a branch was opened in Shikhany-2 of Moscow's Contemporary Humanitarian Academy. The 1st Mobile Brigade (ru:1-я мобильная бригада РХБ защиты) of the Russian NBC Protection Troops is based at the site. There is a well-developed infrastructure at the base including access to a cable TV network and the internet, a café, nine grocery stores, three department stores, a post office and a branch of Russia's Sberbank, a sports centre incorporating a gym and swimming pool, a football pitch and ice hockey rink.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Administrative and municipal status ==
|
||||
Within the framework of administrative divisions, it is incorporated as the closed administrative-territorial formation of Shikhany—an administrative unit with the status equal to that of the districts. As a municipal division, the closed administrative-territorial formation of Shikhany is incorporated as Shikhany Urban Okrug.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Allegations concerning Shikhany-2 as source of novichok agent ==
|
||||
Based upon a report submitted by Russia to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), a British chemical weapons expert indicated that Shikhany was the source of the novichok agent used in the 2018 poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter. However, a chemical weapons site in Uzbekistan that was dismantled and decontaminated in 1999 may have been used to originally produce and test the agent.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Video Footage of Shikhany
|
||||
Shihan
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-0.md
Normal file
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
chunk: 1/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:55.194283+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Shuttle-Centaur was a version of the Centaur upper stage rocket designed to be carried aloft inside the Space Shuttle and used to launch satellites into high Earth orbits or probes into deep space. Two variants were developed: Centaur G-Prime, which was planned to launch the Galileo and Ulysses robotic probes to Jupiter, and Centaur G, a shortened version planned for use with United States Department of Defense Milstar satellites and the Magellan Venus probe. The powerful Centaur upper stage allowed for heavier deep space probes, and for them to reach Jupiter sooner, prolonging the operational life of the spacecraft. However, neither variant ever flew on a Shuttle. Support for the project came from the United States Air Force (USAF) and the National Reconnaissance Office, which asserted that its classified satellites required the power of Centaur. The USAF agreed to pay half the design and development costs of Centaur G, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) paid the other half.
|
||||
Both versions were cradled in the reusable Centaur integrated support system (CISS), an aluminum structure that handled communications between the Space Shuttle and the Centaur. All Centaur stages periodically vented hydrogen, which needs to be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from boiling. Two Shuttle-Centaur missions were scheduled, with one-hour launch windows six days apart, so two separate spacecraft and launch pads were required. The Space Shuttles Challenger and Atlantis were modified to carry the CISS. The Space Shuttle main engines would have been run at 109 percent of the rated power level (with regular Shuttle flights using 104%, possible thanks to margins that were found after development concluded). The payloads needed to be deployed on the first day in orbit, so the missions would be flown by four-person crews composed of astronauts who had already flown in space and were known to not suffer from space adaptation syndrome. The first Centaur G-Prime was rolled out from the General Dynamics factory in Kearny Mesa, San Diego, on 13 August 1985.
|
||||
Just months before the Shuttle-Centaur was scheduled to fly, the Challenger disaster occurred, and the project was canceled. The Galileo and Ulysses probes were ultimately launched using the much less powerful solid-fueled Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), Galileo needing multiple gravitational assists from Venus and Earth to reach Jupiter. The USAF mated a variant of the Centaur G-Prime upper stage with its Titan rocket to produce the Titan IV, which made its first flight in 1994. Over the next 18 years, Titan IV and Centaur G-Prime placed eighteen military satellites in orbit.
|
||||
|
||||
== Background ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Centaur ===
|
||||
Centaur is an upper stage rocket that used liquid hydrogen as fuel and liquid oxygen as an oxidizer. It was developed by General Dynamics in the late 1950s and early 1960s and powered by twin Pratt & Whitney RL10 engines. Rockets utilizing liquid hydrogen as fuel theoretically can lift 40 percent more payload per kilogram of liftoff weight than rockets burning kerosene, but the challenges of using liquid hydrogen required new technology to be developed. Liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fuel, meaning that it condenses at extremely low temperatures, and must be stored below −253 °C (−423 °F) to keep it from boiling. Thus, insulation from all sources of heat, including the rocket exhaust, the relatively warm liquid oxygen, aerodynamic heating, and the radiant heat of the Sun, was required.
|
||||
|
||||
Fuel could be lost through microscopic holes that only hydrogen could leak through, but sealing the fuel tank created another problem. Even when insulated, heat leaks could cause the temperature to rise and boil the hydrogen; pressure in the tank can then build up and rupture it unless proper venting is provided, but too much venting will cause the loss of excessive amounts of fuel. These challenges dogged the development of Centaur with technical difficulties, such as fuel leaking through the welds, and the shrinking of the metal bulkhead when coming into sudden contact with the cryogenic temperatures of liquid hydrogen. Further complicating matters was the explosion of an RL10 on an engine test stand during a demonstration for United States Air Force (USAF) and National Air and Space Administration (NASA) officials.
|
||||
The project's management was transferred from NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, to its Lewis Research Center in Ohio in October 1962, and Abe Silverstein, a strong advocate of liquid hydrogen, took charge. He insisted on a thorough testing regime, which both identified problems and suggested solutions to them. The technical problems of the Centaur project were gradually overcome. The design notably included the weight-saving features pioneered by the Atlas rocket family: a monocoque steel shell that held its shape only when pressurized, hydrogen and oxygen tanks separated by a common bulkhead, and no internal bracing or insulation surrounding the propellant tanks. The technology for handling liquid hydrogen in Centaur was also used the S-II and S-IVB upper stages of the Saturn V rocket, and later by the Space Shuttle external tank and Space Shuttle main engines (SSME).
|
||||
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Centaur was used as the upper stage of Atlas-Centaur launch vehicles, which helped launch seven Surveyor missions, five Mariner missions, and the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes. In the 1970s, Centaur was also placed atop the USAF's Titan III booster to create the Titan IIIE launch vehicle, which was used to launch the Viking, Helios, and Voyager missions. By 1980, Centaur upper stages had flown 55 times, failing only twice.
|
||||
17
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-1.md
Normal file
17
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
chunk: 2/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:55.194283+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Space Shuttle upper stages ===
|
||||
The 1972 decision to develop the Space Shuttle augured badly for the projects to explore the Solar System with robotic probes, which were coming under intense scrutiny by an increasingly cost-conscious Nixon administration and United States Congress. The Space Shuttle was never intended to operate beyond low Earth orbit, but many satellites needed to be higher, particularly communications satellites, for which geostationary orbits were preferred. The Space Shuttle concept originally called for a crewed space tug, which would be launched by a Saturn V. It would use a space station as a base and be serviced and refueled by the Space Shuttle. Budget cutbacks led to the decision to terminate Saturn V production in 1970 and the abandoning of plans to build a space station. The space tug became an upper stage, to be carried into space by the Space Shuttle. As a hedge against further cutbacks or technical difficulties, NASA also commissioned studies of reusable Agena and Centaur upper stages.
|
||||
With funding tight, NASA sought to offload Space Shuttle-related projects onto other organizations. NASA Deputy Administrator George Low met with Malcolm R. Currie, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, in September 1973, and reached an informal agreement that the USAF would develop an interim upper stage (IUS) for the Space Shuttle, to be used for launching satellites in higher orbits pending the development of the space tug. After some debate, Pentagon officials agreed to commit to the IUS on 11 July 1974. The Secretary of Defense, James R. Schlesinger, confirmed the decision when he met with NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher and Low four days later. A series of study contracts were let, resulting in a decision that the IUS would be an expendable solid-fuel upper stage. A call for bids was then issued, and the competition was won by Boeing in August 1976. The IUS was renamed the Inertial Upper Stage in December 1977. The Marshall Space Flight Center was designated the lead center for managing IUS work.
|
||||
In April 1978, the quote for the development of the IUS was $263 million (equivalent to $990 million in 2024), but by December 1979 it was renegotiated for $430 million (equivalent to $1495 million in 2024). The main drawback of the IUS was that it was not powerful enough to launch a payload to Jupiter without resorting to gravitational slingshot maneuvers around other planets to garner more speed, something most engineers regarded as inelegant, and which planetary scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) disliked because it meant that the mission would take months or years longer to reach Jupiter. The IUS was constructed in a modular fashion, with two stages: a large one with 9,700 kilograms (21,400 lb) of propellant and a smaller one with 2,700 kilograms (6,000 lb), which was sufficient for most satellites. It could also be configured with two large stages to launch multiple satellites. The USAF asked NASA to develop a configuration with three stages, two large and one small, that could be used for a planetary mission like Galileo. NASA contracted with Boeing for its development.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Deep space probes ===
|
||||
Congress approved funding for the Jupiter Orbiter Probe on 12 July 1977. The following year the spacecraft was renamed Galileo after Galileo Galilei, the 17th-century astronomer who had discovered the largest four of Jupiter's moons, now known as the Galilean moons. During the early 1980s, Galileo struggled with both technical and funding difficulties, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) targeted NASA for budget cuts. The intervention of the USAF saved Galileo from cancellation. It was interested in the development of autonomous spacecraft like Galileo that could take evasive action in the face of anti-satellite weapons, and in the manner in which the JPL was designing Galileo to withstand the intense radiation of the magnetosphere of Jupiter, which had application in surviving nearby nuclear detonations. The Galileo project aimed for a launch window in January 1982 when the alignment of the planets would be favorable to using Mars for a slingshot maneuver to reach Jupiter. Galileo would be the fifth spacecraft to visit Jupiter, and the first to orbit it, while the probe it carried would be the first to enter its atmosphere. In December 1984, Galileo project manager John R. Casani proposed that Galileo make a flyby of asteroid 29 Amphitrite while en route. It would be the first time a US space mission visited an asteroid. NASA Administrator James M. Beggs endorsed the proposal as a secondary objective for Galileo.
|
||||
15
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-2.md
Normal file
15
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
chunk: 3/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:55.194283+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
To enhance reliability and reduce costs, the Galileo project's engineers decided to switch from a pressurized atmospheric entry probe to a vented one. This added 100 kilograms (220 lb) to its weight, and another 165 kilograms (364 lb) was added in structural changes to improve reliability, all of which would require extra fuel in the IUS. But the three-stage IUS was itself overweight, by about 3,200 kilograms (7,000 lb) against its design specifications. Lifting Galileo and the IUS would require the use of the special lightweight version of the Space Shuttle external tank, the Space Shuttle orbiter stripped of all non-essential equipment, and the SSME running at full power—109 percent of their rated power level. This necessitated the development of a more elaborate engine cooling system. By late 1979, delays in the Space Shuttle program pushed the launch date for Galileo back to 1984, when the planets would no longer be aligned so that a Mars slingshot would be sufficient to reach Jupiter.
|
||||
An alternative to the IUS was to use Centaur as an upper stage with the Space Shuttle. Shuttle-Centaur would require neither 109 percent power from the SSME, nor a slingshot maneuver to send the 2,000 kilograms (4,500 lb) to Jupiter. NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Transportation Systems, John Yardley, directed the Lewis Research Center to determine the feasibility of integrating Centaur with the Space Shuttle. The engineers at Lewis concluded that it was both feasible and safe. A source inside NASA told The Washington Post journalist Thomas O'Toole that the cost of modifying Centaur so it could be carried on the Space Shuttle would be worth it, as the performance benefit of Centaur would mean that Galileo was no longer tied to a 1982 launch window.
|
||||
A third possibility considered was to launch Galileo using a Centaur upper stage atop a Titan IIIE, but this would have required rebuilding the launch complex at Cape Canaveral, which would have added at least $125 million (equivalent to $434 million in 2024) to the cost of the $285 million (equivalent to $991 million in 2024) Galileo project. Beggs insisted that expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) were obsolete and that any money spent on them would only undermine the Space Shuttle's cost-effectiveness. Moreover, Titan had been developed by and was owned and controlled by, the USAF, and its use would mean that NASA would have to work closely with the USAF, something that NASA management hoped to avoid as much as possible. While NASA and the USAF collaborated and depended on each other to some extent, they were also rivals, and NASA resisted attempts by United States Department of Defense (DoD) to manage the space program. On 13 November 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive Number 8, which directed that the Space Shuttle would be the primary launch system for all military and civil government missions, but Edward C. Aldridge Jr., the Under Secretary of the Air Force (and secretly the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office) doubted that NASA could meet its target of twenty-four Space Shuttle launches a year; he thought that twelve was more likely, and given that only the newest two orbiters, Discovery and Atlantis could lift his largest payloads, there might not be enough Space Shuttle flights. Reagan was persuaded to revise his policy to permit a mixed fleet of ELVs and Space Shuttles, and the USAF ordered ten Titan IV rockets in 1984. NASA historian T. A. Heppenheimer noted that in retrospect, "it was a mistake not to go with the Titan IIIE-Centaur", given the delays and higher costs ultimately involved in using the Shuttle, but this was not apparent in 1984.
|
||||
Although Galileo was the only American planetary mission scheduled, there was another mission in preparation: the International Solar Polar Mission, which was renamed Ulysses in 1984. It was originally conceived in 1977 as a two-spacecraft mission, NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) each providing one spacecraft, but the American one was canceled in 1981, and NASA's contribution was limited to the power supply, launch vehicle, and tracking via the NASA Deep Space Network. The object of the mission was to gain an enhanced knowledge of the heliosphere by putting a satellite into a polar orbit around the Sun. Because Earth's orbit is inclined only 7.25 degrees to the Sun's equator, the solar poles cannot be observed from Earth. Scientists hoped to gain a greater understanding of the solar wind, the interplanetary magnetic field, cosmic rays and cosmic dust. The Ulysses probe had the same initial destination as Galileo, as it would first have to travel out to Jupiter and then use a slingshot maneuver to leave the ecliptic plane and enter a solar polar orbit.
|
||||
Another mission for Shuttle-Centaur subsequently appeared in the form of the Venus Radar Mapper, later renamed Magellan. The first mission integration panel meeting for this probe was held at the Lewis Research Center on 8 November 1983. Several Space Shuttle upper stages were considered, including the Orbital Sciences Corporation Transfer Orbit Stage (TOS), the Astrotech Corporation Delta Transfer Stage, and the Boeing IUS, but the meeting chose Centaur as the best option. Magellan was tentatively scheduled for launch in April 1988. The USAF adopted Shuttle-Centaur in 1984 for the launch of its Milstar satellites. These military communications satellites were hardened against interception, jamming and nuclear attack. Telephone conversations with General Dynamics regarding the project had to be conducted over secure lines. Having the USAF on board had saved the project from cancellation, but the USAF asked for design changes and performance enhancements. One such change was to allow the Milstar to have a direct connection with Centaur that would be separated using explosive bolts, which required further testing to ascertain the effect of the resulting shock.
|
||||
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-3.md
Normal file
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
chunk: 4/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:55.194283+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Decision to use Shuttle-Centaur ==
|
||||
NASA Administrator Robert A. Frosch stated in November 1979 that he was not in favor of using Centaur, but Centaur found a champion in Congressman Edward P. Boland, who considered the IUS too underpowered for deep space missions, although he did not oppose its development for other purposes. He was impressed by Centaur's ability to put Galileo in Jupiter orbit with just two years' flight and saw potential military applications for it as well. He chaired the House Intelligence Committee and the House Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, and had the Appropriations Committee instruct NASA to use Centaur if weight problems with Galileo prompted a further postponement. Orders from a Congressional committee had no legal standing, so NASA was free to disregard this. Appearing before the Senate, Frosch was non-committal, saying only that NASA had the matter under consideration.
|
||||
|
||||
NASA decided to split Galileo into two separate spacecraft: an atmospheric probe and a Jupiter orbiter, the orbiter being launched in February 1984 and the probe following a month later. The orbiter would be in orbit around Jupiter when the probe arrived, allowing it to perform its role as a relay. Separating the two spacecraft was estimated to cost another $50 million (equivalent to $174 million in 2024). NASA hoped to be able to recoup some of this through separate competitive bidding on the two. But while the atmospheric probe was light enough to launch with the two-stage IUS, the Jupiter orbiter was too heavy to do so, even with a gravitational slingshot around Mars, so the three-stage IUS was still required.
|
||||
By late 1980, the estimated cost of the development of the two-stage IUS had risen to $506 million (equivalent to $1612 million in 2024). The USAF could absorb this cost overrun (and indeed had anticipated that it might cost far more), but NASA was faced with a quote of $179 million (equivalent to $521 million in 2024) for the development of the three-stage version, which was $100 million (equivalent to $291 million in 2024) more than it had budgeted. At a press conference on 15 January 1981, Frosch announced that NASA was withdrawing support for the three-stage IUS and going with Centaur because "no other alternative upper stage is available on a reasonable schedule or with comparable costs."
|
||||
Centaur provided important advantages over the IUS. The main one was that it was far more powerful. The Galileo probe and orbiter could be recombined and the probe could be delivered directly to Jupiter in two years' flight time. Longer travel times meant that components would age and the onboard power supply and propellant would be depleted. The radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) on Ulysses and Galileo produced about 570 watts at launch, which decreased at the rate of 0.6 watts per month. Some of the gravity assist options also involved flying closer to the Sun, which would induce thermal stresses.
|
||||
Another advantage that Centaur had over the IUS was while it was more powerful, Centaur generated its thrust more slowly, thereby minimizing jerk and the chance of damage to the payload. Also, unlike solid-fuel rockets, which burned to depletion once ignited, the liquid-fuel engines on Centaur could be shut down and restarted. This gave Centaur flexibility in the form of mid-course corrections and multi-burn flight profiles, which increased the chances of a successful mission. Finally, Centaur was proven and reliable. The only concern was about safety; solid-fuel rockets were considered far safer than liquid-fuel ones, especially ones containing liquid hydrogen. NASA engineers estimated that additional safety features might take up to five years to develop and cost up to $100 million (equivalent to $291 million in 2024).
|
||||
The IUS made its first flight atop a Titan 34D in October 1982, when it placed two military satellites in geosynchronous orbit. It was then used on a Space Shuttle mission, STS-6 in April 1983, to deploy the first tracking and data relay satellite (TDRS-1), but the IUS's nozzle changed its position by one degree, resulting in the satellite being placed in the wrong orbit. It took two years to determine what had gone wrong and how to prevent it happening again.
|
||||
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-4.md
Normal file
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-4.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
chunk: 5/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:55.194283+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Congressional approval ==
|
||||
The decision to go with Centaur pleased planetary scientists and was welcomed by the communications industry, because it meant that larger satellites could be placed into geostationary orbits, whereas the Shuttle and IUS were limited to 3,000-kilogram (6,600 lb) payloads. NASA Headquarters liked Shuttle-Centaur as an answer to the ESA's Ariane rocket family; by 1986, new versions of the Ariane under development were expected to be able to lift payloads heavier than 3,000 kilograms (6,600 lb) into geostationary orbits, thereby cutting NASA out of a lucrative segment of the satellite launch business. The USAF, though disappointed with NASA's decision to drop the three-stage IUS, foresaw a need for USAF satellites to carry more propellant than previously to engage in avoidance maneuvers against anti-satellite weapons.
|
||||
Two groups, in particular, were unhappy with the decision: Boeing and the Marshall Space Flight Center. Other aerospace companies were disappointed that NASA had decided to adapt the existing Centaur upper stage rather than develop a new high energy upper stage (HEUS) or the orbital transfer vehicle (OTV), as the space tug was now called. The OMB was not opposed to Centaur on any technical grounds, but it was a discretionary expense and in the budget-cutting atmosphere of 1981, one that the OMB felt could be dropped for the fiscal year 1983 budget, which was submitted to Congress in February 1982. Galileo was reconfigured for a 1985 launch using the two-stage IUS, which would take four years to get to Jupiter and reduce the number of moons visited by half when it got there.
|
||||
Senator Harrison Schmitt, the Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, and a former astronaut who had walked on the Moon on Apollo 17, was opposed to the OMB decision, as were the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Support for it came from the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, Congressman Ronnie G. Flippo, whose district in Alabama encompassed the Marshall Space Flight Center. In July 1982, the proponents of Centaur added $140 million (equivalent to $384 million in 2024) to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, which was signed into law by Reagan on 18 July 1982. As well as allocating the funding, it directed NASA and Boeing to cease work on the two-stage IUS for Galileo.
|
||||
Flippo fought this decision. He argued that Centaur was too expensive, as it cost $140 million in the current year with the whole Shuttle-Centaur project estimated to cost around $634 million (equivalent to $1739 million in 2024); that it was of limited use, since it was only required for two deep space missions; and that it was a prime example of faulty procurement, because an important contract was being given to General Dynamics without any form of tender process. He enlisted the support of Congressman Don Fuqua, the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Centaur was defended by Congressman Bill Lowery, whose San Diego district included General Dynamics.
|
||||
On 15 September, Flippo moved an amendment to the 1983 NASA appropriations bill that would have forbidden further work on Centaur, but his position was undermined by Aldridge and Beggs, who contended that the early Space Shuttle flights showed that classified Department of Defense satellites would require more shielding, which would add more weight, and therefore require the power of Centaur. Aldridge and Beggs announced that they would soon conclude an agreement for the joint development of Shuttle-Centaur. Flippo's amendment was defeated by a vote of 316 to 77, clearing the way for the Shuttle-Centaur project.
|
||||
|
||||
== Design ==
|
||||
|
||||
On 30 August 1982, a meeting of representatives of the NASA centers and Centaur contractors was held at General Dynamics in San Diego to discuss the requirements of the project. The principal constraint was that both the satellite and Centaur upper stage had to fit inside the Space Shuttle's cargo bay, which could accommodate loads up to 18.3 meters (60 ft) long and 4.6 meters (15 ft) wide. The longer the Centaur, the less space for the payload and vice versa.
|
||||
From this arose two new versions of Centaur: Centaur G and Centaur G-Prime. Centaur G was intended for USAF missions, specifically to place satellites into geostationary orbits, and the $269 million (equivalent to $738 million in 2024) to design and develop it was split 50–50 with the USAF. It was 6.1 meters (20 ft) long, allowing for large USAF payloads up to 12.2 meters (40 ft) long. Its dry weight was 3,060 kilograms (6,750 lb) and it weighed 16,928 kilograms (37,319 lb) fully loaded. Centaur G-Prime was intended for deep space missions and was 9.0 meters (29.5 ft) long, allowing it to carry more propellant, but restricting the length of the payload to 9.3 meters (31 ft). The dry weight of the Centaur G-Prime was 2,761 kilograms (6,088 lb), and it weighed 22,800 kilograms (50,270 lb) fully loaded.
|
||||
The two versions were very similar, 80 percent of their components being the same. The Centaur G-Prime stage had two RL10-3-3A engines, each with 73,400 newtons (16,500 lbf) thrust, and a specific impulse of 446.4 seconds, with a 5:1 fuel ratio. The Centaur G stage had two RL10-3-3B engines, each with 66,700 newtons (15,000 lbf) thrust, and specific impulse of 440.4 seconds, with a 6:1 fuel ratio. The engines were capable of multiple restarts after long periods of coasting in space and had a hydraulic gimbal actuation system powered by the turbopump.
|
||||
19
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-5.md
Normal file
19
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-5.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
chunk: 6/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:55.194283+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Centaur G and G-Prime avionics were the same as that of the standard Centaur and were still mounted in the forward equipment module. They used a 24-bit Teledyne Digital Computer Unit with 16 kilobytes of RAM to control guidance and navigation. They still used the same pressurized steel tank, but with more insulation including a two-layer foam blanket over the forward bulkhead and a three-layer radiation shield. Other changes included new forward and aft adapters; a new propellant fill, drain and dump system; and an S band transmitter and RF system compatible with the TDRS system. Considerable effort was put into making Centaur safe, with redundant components to overcome malfunctions and a propellant draining, dumping and venting system so that the propellants could be dumped in case of emergency.
|
||||
Both versions were cradled in the Centaur integrated support system (CISS), a 4.6-meter (15 ft) aluminum structure that handled communications between the Space Shuttle and the Centaur upper stage. It helped keep the number of modifications to the Space Shuttle to a minimum. When the cargo doors opened, the CISS would pivot 45 degrees into a ready position to launch Centaur. After twenty minutes, the Centaur would be launched by a set of twelve coil springs with a 10-centimeter (4 in) stroke known as the Super*Zip separation ring. The Centaur upper stage would then coast at a speed of 0.30 meters per second (1 ft/s) for 45 minutes before starting its main burn a safe distance from the Space Shuttle. For most missions, only a single burn was required. Once the burn was complete, the spacecraft would separate from the Centaur upper stage, which could still maneuver to avoid striking the spacecraft.
|
||||
|
||||
All electrical connections between the Orbiter and the Centaur were routed through the CISS. Electrical power for the Centaur was provided by a 150-ampere-hour (540,000 C) silver zinc battery. Power for the CISS was provided by two 375-ampere-hour (1,350,000 C) batteries. Since the CISS was also plugged into the Orbiter, this provided two-failure redundancy. The Centaur G CISS weighed 2,947 kilograms (6,497 lb) and the Centaur G-Prime CISS 2,961 kilograms (6,528 lb). The CISS was fully reusable for ten flights and would be returned to Earth. The Space Shuttles Challenger and Atlantis were modified to carry the CISS. These changes included additional plumbing to load and vent Centaur's cryogenic propellants, and controls on the aft flight deck for loading and monitoring the Centaur upper stage.
|
||||
By June 1981, the Lewis Research Center had awarded four contracts for Centaur G-Prime worth a total of $7,483,000 (equivalent to $20.5 million in 2024): General Dynamics was to develop the Centaur rockets; Teledyne, the computer and multiplexers; Honeywell, the guidance and navigation systems; and Pratt & Whitney, the four RL10A-3-3A engines.
|
||||
|
||||
== Management ==
|
||||
Christopher C. Kraft Jr., William R. Lucas, and Richard G. Smith, the directors of the Johnson Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center and Kennedy Space Center respectively, did not like NASA Headquarters' decision to assign Shuttle-Centaur to the Lewis Research Center. In a January 1981 letter to Alan M. Lovelace, the acting Administrator of NASA, they argued that management of the Shuttle-Centaur project should instead be assigned to the Marshall Space Flight Center, which had some experience with cryogenic propellants and more experience with the Space Shuttle, which the three directors regarded as a complex system that only their centers understood.
|
||||
Engineers at the Lewis Research Center saw matters differently. The director of the Lewis Research Center, John F. McCarthy Jr., wrote to Lovelace in March, providing reasons why the Lewis Research Center was the best choice: it had led the project to evaluate the feasibility of mating the Space Shuttle with Centaur; it had more experience with Centaur than any of the other NASA centers; it had developed the Centaur; managed the Titan-Centaur project in which Centaur was mated with the Titan III booster; had experience with space probes through the Surveyor, Viking and Voyager projects; and had a highly skilled workforce where the average engineer had thirteen years of experience. In May 1981, Lovelace informed Lucas of his decision to have the Lewis Research Center manage the project. In November 1982, Andrew Stofan, the director of the Lewis Research Center, and Lew Allen, the director of the JPL, signed a Memorandum of Agreement on the Galileo project; JPL was responsible for the design and management of the mission, and the Lewis Research Center for integrating the Galileo spacecraft with the Centaur and the Space Shuttle.
|
||||
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-6.md
Normal file
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-6.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
chunk: 7/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:55.194283+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The future of the Lewis Research Center was uncertain in the 1970s and early 1980s. The cancellation of the NERVA nuclear rocket engine had caused a round of layoffs in the 1970s, and many of the more experienced engineers had elected to retire. Between 1971 and 1981, staff numbers fell from 4,200 to 2,690. In 1982, the staff became aware that the Reagan administration was considering closing the center, and they mounted a vigorous campaign to save it. The staff formed a committee to save the center, and began lobbying Congress. The committee enlisted Ohio Senator John Glenn and representatives Mary Rose Oakar, Howard Metzenbaum, Donald J. Pease, and Louis Stokes in their efforts to persuade Congress to keep the center open.
|
||||
McCarthy retired in July 1982, and Andrew Stofan became the director of the Lewis Research Center. He was an associate administrator at NASA Headquarters, whose involvement with Centaur dated back to 1962 and who had headed the Atlas-Centaur and Titan-Centaur Offices in the 1970s. Under Stofan, the Lewis Research Center budget went from $133 million in 1979 (equivalent to $462 million 2024) to $188 million in 1985 (equivalent to $464 million in 2024). This permitted an increase in staff for the first time in 20 years, 190 new engineers being hired. In the process, the Lewis Research Center drifted away from fundamental research and became involved in the management of major projects like Shuttle-Centaur.
|
||||
William H. Robbins was appointed the head of the Shuttle-Center Project Office at the Lewis Research Center in July 1983. Most of his experience was with NERVA, and this was his first experience with Centaur, but he was an experienced project manager. He handled the project's administration and financial arrangements. Vernon Weyers was his deputy. USAF Major William Files also became a deputy project manager. He brought with him six USAF officers who assumed key roles in the Project Office. Marty Winkler headed the Shuttle-Centaur program at General Dynamics. Steven V. Szabo, who had worked on Centaur since 1963, was head of the Lewis Research Center's Space Transportation Engineering Division, responsible for the technical side of the activities related to the integration of the Space Shuttle and Centaur, which included the propulsion, pressurization, structural, electrical, guidance, control and telemetry systems. Edwin Muckley was in charge of the Mission Integration Office, which was responsible for the payloads. Frank Spurlock managed trajectory mission design, and Joe Nieberding took charge of the Shuttle-Centaur group within the Space Transportation Engineering Division. Spurlock and Nieberding hired many young engineers, giving the Shuttle-Centaur project a mixture of youth and experience.
|
||||
|
||||
The Shuttle-Centaur Project had to be ready to launch in May 1986, which was just three years away. The cost of a delay was estimated at $50 million (equivalent to $121 million in 2024). Failure to meet the deadline meant waiting another year until the planets were properly aligned again. The project adopted a mission logo depicting a mythical centaur emerging from the Space Shuttle and firing an arrow at the stars. Larry Ross, the Director of Space Flight Systems at the Lewis Research Center, had the logo emblazoned on project stationery and memorabilia like drink coasters and campaign buttons. A special Shuttle-Centaur project calendar was produced, with 28 months on it, covering January 1984 to April 1986. The cover sported the logo, with the project motto, co-opted from the movie Rocky III: "Go for it!"
|
||||
When it came to integrating Centaur with the Space Shuttle, there were two possible approaches: as an element or a payload. Elements were components of the Space Shuttle like the external tank and the solid rocket boosters; whereas a payload was something being carried into space like a satellite. The 1981 Memorandum of Agreement between the Johnson Space Center and the Lewis Research Center defined the Centaur as an element. The engineers at the Lewis Research Center initially preferred to have it declared a payload, because time was short and this minimized the amount of interference in their work by the Johnson Space Center. Centaur was declared to be a payload in 1983, but the drawbacks soon became evident. Payload status was originally conceived as being for inert pieces of cargo. Complying with the requirements of this status resulted in a series of safety waivers. The difficulty of compliance was compounded by the Johnson Space Center, which added more for Centaur. Both centers wanted to make the Centaur as safe as possible, but differed over what trade-offs were acceptable.
|
||||
|
||||
== Preparations ==
|
||||
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-7.md
Normal file
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur-7.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
chunk: 8/9
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Centaur"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T13:20:55.194283+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Two Shuttle-Centaur missions were scheduled: STS-61-F for Ulysses in the Space Shuttle Challenger for 15 May 1986, and STS-61-G for Galileo in the Space Shuttle Atlantis for 20 May. Crews were assigned in May 1985: STS-61-F would be commanded by Frederick Hauck, with Roy D. Bridges Jr. as the pilot and mission specialists John M. Lounge and David C. Hilmers; STS-61-G would be commanded by David M. Walker, with Ronald J. Grabe as pilot and James van Hoften and John M. Fabian, who was replaced by Norman Thagard in September, as mission specialists. As well as being the STS-61-F commander, Hauck was the Shuttle-Centaur project officer at the Astronaut Office. He and Walker attended key senior management project meetings, which was unusual for astronauts.
|
||||
The four-person crews would be the smallest since STS-6 in April 1983, and they would fly into a low 170-kilometer (110 mi) orbit, which was the highest that the Space Shuttle could achieve with a fully fueled Centaur on board. Centaur would periodically vent boiling hydrogen to maintain the proper internal pressure. The high rate of hydrogen boil-off from the Centaur meant that deploying it as soon as possible was essential to ensure it had sufficient fuel. Payload deployments were not normally scheduled for the first day to allow time for astronauts who came down with space adaptation syndrome to recover. To avoid this so as to permit a deployment attempt as early as seven hours after launch, both crews were entirely composed of astronauts who had already flown in space at least once before and were known to not suffer from it.
|
||||
The two launches would only have a one-hour launch window and there would be just five days between them. Because of this, two launch pads would be used: Launch Complex 39A for STS-61-G and Atlantis and Launch Complex 39B for STS-61-F and Challenger. The latter had only recently been refurbished to handle the Space Shuttle. The first Centaur G-Prime, SC-1, was rolled out from the General Dynamics factory in Kearny Mesa, San Diego, on 13 August 1985. The theme music from Star Wars was played, a crowd of 300, mostly General Dynamics employees, was in attendance, as were astronauts Fabian, Walker and Hauck, and speeches were given by dignitaries.
|
||||
|
||||
SC-1 was then flown to the Kennedy Space Center, where it was mated with CISS-1, which had arrived two months before. SC-2 and CISS-2 followed in November. The USAF made its Shuttle Payload Integration Facility at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station available in November and December so SC-1 and SC-2 could be processed at the same time. A problem was detected with the propellant level indicator in the oxygen tank in SC-1, which was promptly redesigned, fabricated, and installed. There was also a problem with the drain valves, which was found and corrected. Shuttle-Centaur was certified as flight ready by NASA Associate Administrator Jesse Moore in November 1985.
|
||||
The Johnson Space Center committed to lifting 29,000 kilograms (65,000 lb) but the engineers at Lewis Research Center were aware that the Space Shuttle was unlikely to be able to lift that amount. To compensate, the Lewis Research Center reduced the amount of propellant in the Centaur. This limited the number of possible launch days to just six. Concerned that this was too few, Nieberding gave a presentation to key management officials in which he made the case to Moore for the Space Shuttle engines to be run at 109 percent. Moore approved the request over the objections of representatives of the Marshall Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Center who were present.
|
||||
The astronauts considered the Shuttle-Centaur missions to be riskiest Space Shuttle missions yet, referring to Centaur as the "Death Star". The main safety issue that concerned them involved what would happen in the case of an aborted mission, a failure of the Space Shuttle systems to put them into orbit. In that case, the crew would dump the Centaur's propellant and attempt to land. This was an extremely dangerous maneuver, but also an extremely unlikely contingency (in fact, one that would never occur in the life of the Space Shuttle program). In such an emergency, all the propellant could be drained through valves on both sides of the Space Shuttle's fuselage in 250 seconds, but their proximity to the main engines and the Orbital Maneuvering System was a concern for the astronauts, who feared fuel leaks and explosions. The Space Shuttle orbiter would then have to land with Centaur still on board, and its center of gravity would be further aft than on any previous mission.
|
||||
Hauck and John Young, the astronaut who was chief of the Shuttle office, took their concerns to the Johnson Space Center Configuration Control Board, which ruled the risk acceptable. Engineers at the Lewis Research Center, the JPL and General Dynamics dismissed the astronauts' concerns about liquid hydrogen, pointing out that the Space Shuttle was propelled by liquid hydrogen and at liftoff the Space Shuttle's external tank contained 25 times the amount of fuel carried by Centaur. Surprised by the board's approval of Centaur, Hauck offered his crew the opportunity to resign from the mission with his support, but no one accepted the offer.
|
||||
Some files were not shown because too many files have changed in this diff Show More
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user