Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “STS”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 253 records · Page 14

STS-114: Discovery Day 9 Mission Status Briefing

Paul Hill, STS-114 Lead Shuttle Flight Director, Mark Ferring, STS-114 Lead ISS Flight Director and Cindy Begley, STS-114 Lead EVA Officer is shown during this 9th day of the Space Shuttle Mission to the International Space Station. Paul Hill talks about the status of the transfers of critical items to the International Space Station and transfers back from the International Space Station into the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM). Hill also presents footage of the crew cabin blanket survey procedure. Mark Ferring talks in detail about the primary International Space Station task on the External Stowage Platform (ESP). The status of the external stowage platform installation, removal of grapple fixture, gap filler removal task, and Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) 5 payload installation is discussed by Cindy Begley. She also presents footage of Steve Robinson's spacewalk before the gap filler task and during the removal of the gap filler. The Capture of ESP-2 is also presented. The presentation ends with a question and answer period from the news media

Source record↗

STS-114: Discovery Mission Status Briefing

This STS-114 Discovery Mission Status Briefing begins with Eileen Collins, Commander of the STS-114 Discovery, and crewmembers in orbit talking with mission control after launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery. Collins gives tribute to the crewmembers of the Space Shuttle Columbia and their families. Phil Engelauf, STS-114 Mission Operations Representative presents his mission status briefing and John Shannon, Space Shuttle Flight Operations and Integration Manager talks about the processing of radar data taken of the Space Shuttle Discovery during ascent. A video presentation from the Solid Rocket Booster Camera is shown by John Shannon. The video includes: 1) Piece of orbiter tile and origins of debris; 2) Pictures of debris after SRB separation; 3) TYVEK covers; and 4) Bird impacts external tank nose cone. Questions from the news media about tile shearing, vehicle damage and debris from the external tank are answered.

Source record↗

STS-114: Multi-Cut Profiles and Mission Overviews

Profiles of the seven crewmembers of the STS-114 Discovery are shown. Eileen Collins, Commander, talks about her fascination with flying as a young child and her eagerness to have someone teach her to fly at age 19. Her eagerness and hard work earned her a master's in operations research from Stanford University in 1986 and a master's in space systems management from Webster University in 1989. Jim Kelly, Pilot, talks about his desire to become an astronaut at a very young age. Charles Camarda, Mission Specialist, always wanted to become an astronaut and earned a Bachelor's degree in aerospace engineering from Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn in 1974, a Master's in engineering Science from George Washington University in 1980 and a doctorate in aerospace engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1990. Wendy Lawrence, Mission Specialist decided that she wanted to become an astronaut when she saw the first man to walk on the moon. Soichi Noguchi, Mission Specialist from JAXA expresses that people like scientists, doctors and engineers could fly and he also wanted to venture into spaceflight. Steve Robinson, Mission Specialist says that he was fascinated with things that flew as a child and wanted to make things fly. Australian born Andrew Thomas, Mission Specialist wanted to become an astronaut as a young boy but never realized that he would fulfill his dream. The crewmember profiles end with an overview of the STS-114 Discovery mission. Paul Hill, Lead Flight Director talks about the main goal of the STS-114 mission which is to demonstrate that changes to the Orbiter and flight procedures are good and the second goal is to finish construction of the International Space Station. Sergei Krikalev, Commander talks about increasing the capability of the International Space Station, Jim Kelly discusses the work that is being performed in the external tank, Andy Thomas talks about procedures done to stop foam release and Soichi Noguchi discusses his duty to film the external tank after separation.

Source record↗

STS-114: Discovery Day 3 Mission Status Briefing

Paul Hill, STS-114 Lead Shuttle Flight Director and John Shannon, Space Shuttle Flight Operations and Integration Manager are seen in this STS-114 flight day three Mission Status Briefing. Hill expresses that the Discovery Orbiter is performing beautifully and that STS-114 crew performed a picture perfect rendezvous. He also shows a video of the Rendezvous Pitch Maneuver (RPM) where Commander Eileen Collins slowly flips Discovery in a circle to give the Expedition 11 crew a view of Discovery's heat resistant tiles. He talks about the removal of the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) from Discovery's payload bay using the ISS Robotic Arm. Shannon discusses two objectives that his team is fulfilling on this mission. They include: 1) Understanding the health of Space Shuttle Discovery; and 2) Assessing the performance of the External Tank. Questions from the news media pertaining to the life expectancy of the Space Shuttle Discovery, battery lifetime on the wing leading edge impact sensors, foam loss, PAL ramps, and the safety of the Space Shuttle Discovery are addressed.

Source record↗

STS-1: Columbia Complete Mission

A video presentation of the STS-1 Columbia Mission is shown. The video begins with footage of the STS-1 Columbia arriving at Kennedy Space Center on March 24, 1979. The various milestones that were shown include: 1) STS-1 Columbia Shuttle Rocket Booster (SRB) stacking; 2) External Tank (ET) lift and mating; 3) Move to VAB and Mating; 4) Rollout to pad 39A; 5) Flight Readiness Firing (FRF) on February 19, 1981; 6) Launch day; and 7) Return to Kennedy Space Center. John W. Young, Commander and Robert L. Crippen, Pilot are shown having a traditional breakfast before the suit up and drive out to the launch pad. Footage of the lift-off along with Shuttle Rocket Booster (SRB) separation is shown. After lift-off, there is a shot of the crew in the mid-deck and also a view of thunderstorms over the Amazon Basin. The video ends with a view of Columbia returning to Kennedy Space Center on April 25, 1981.

Source record↗

STS-1: Columbia Briefings

A video presentation on an update of the STS-1 Columbia Shuttle is shown. Hugh Harris is the moderator. He introduces Don Phillips, Chief STS Test OPS, who presents the status of the vehicle. Terry William, Chief of Mechanical Systems, discusses the debonding of the panels. A question and answer period from the news media is shown. The various topics of discussion from the news media include: 1) Repair of thermal tiles; 2) Launch dates; and 3) Landing and launch sites and 4) Low pressure/high pressure tanking tests. An audio presentation is given of questions from NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and NASA Washington. On March 12, 1981, another STS-1 Columbia update is shown. Bob Schick, Shuttle Test Director, and Bob Sieck, Flight Project Engineer answers questions about the actual repair time of the panels and a very detailed description of the three areas of debonding is presented. A brief launch date statement from Dr. Allen Lovelace, Acting NASA Administrator is given and John Lardley, Shuttle Associate Director, discusses the flight readiness review.

Source record↗

STS-121: Discovery End of Mission Crew Briefing

The crew of the STS-121 Discovery mission is shown during this end of mission briefing. The crewmembers consist of: Stephanie Wilson, mission specialist; Steve Lindsey, commander; Lisa Nowak, mission specialist; Piers Sellers, mission specialist; Mike Fossum, mission specialist; and Mark Kelly, pilot. The briefing opens with Commander Lindsey describing the two major objectives of this mission, which are to accomplish the rest of the return to flight objectives started by STS-114, and to increase the ISS crew to three. He expresses that these objectives were fulfilled. A question and answer period from the news media follows. Lisa Nowak talks about robotics and her experiences during her first flight. Stephanie Wilson also discusses robotics and gives her thoughts about spaceflight. Steve Lindsey discusses the flying qualities of STS-121, spacecraft landing, and weather conditions while in space. Mark Kelly was responsible for the undocking of the Shuttle from the International Space Station, and he elaborates on this process. Spacewalkers Piers Sellers and Mike Fossum discuss testing of the Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS). This system will be used as a platform to make repairs to the Space Shuttle.

Source record↗

STS-121: Discovery L-1 Countdown Status Briefing

Bruce Buckingham, NASA Public Affairs, introduces Jeff Spaulding, NASA Test Director; Debbie Hahn, STS-121 Payload Manager; and Kathy Winters, Shuttle Weather Officer. Spaulding gives his opening statement on this one day prior to the launching of the Space Shuttle Discovery. He discusses the following topics: 1) Launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery; 2) Weather; 3) Load over of onboard reactants; 4) Hold time for liquid hydrogen; 5) Stowage of Mid-deck completion; 6) Check-out of onboard and ground network systems; 7) Launch windows; 8) Mission duration; 9) Extravehicular (EVA) plans; 10) Space Shuttle landing day; and 11) Scrub turn-around plans. Hahn presents and discusses a short video of the STS-121 payload flow. Kathy Winters gives her weather forecast for launch. She then presents a slide presentation on the following weather conditions for the Space Shuttle Discovery: 1) STS-121 Tanking Forecast; 2) Launch Forecast; 3) SRB Recovery; 4) CONUS Launch; 5) TAL Launch; 6) 24 Hour Delay; 7) CONUS 24 Hour; 8) TAL 24 Hour; 9) 48 Hour Launch; 10) CONUS 48 Hour; and 11) TAL 48 Hour. The briefing ends with a question and answer period from the media.

Source record↗

Human Spaceflight Trajectory Operations: A Case Study from STS-132/ULF4

Prior to the launch of the STS-132/ULF4 mission, the International Space Station (ISS) Flight Control Team was alerted to the approach of a space debris with a predicted time of closest approach approximately 1 hr after Space Shuttle docking. As a result, the ISS team considered performing a collision avoidance maneuver prior to the Space Shuttle s approach. The purpose of this presentation will be to use this case study to illustrate best practices of the human spaceflight trajectory operations team. The presentation will begin with an overview of the roles of the real-time ISS and Space Shuttle trajectory flight control teams. Then, the STS-132/ULF4 case study will be used to illustrate the issues and lessons learned involved in performing Space Shuttle rendezvous maneuver planning and execution. Specific elements of the STS-132 Space Shuttle rendezvous maneuver profile that can be used to provide mission assurance in cases of trajectory uncertainty will be described and discussed. Additionally, this case study will be used to provide context for identifying lessons learned in an operational environment that requires technical and decision-making coordination between two control center teams with two potentially maneuvering space vehicles.

Cutri-Kohart, Rebecca↗

Characterization of Volume F Trash from Four Recent STS Missions: Weights, Categorization, Water Content

The fate of space-generated solid wastes, including trash, for future missions is under consideration by NASA. Several potential treatment options are under consideration and active technology development. Potential fates for space-generated solid wastes are: Storage without treatment; storage after treatment(s) including volume reduction, water recovery, sterilization, and recovery plus recycling of waste materials. Recycling might be important for partial or full closure scenarios because of the prohibitive costs associated with resupply of consumable materials. For this study, we determined the composition of trash returned from four recent STS missions. The trash material was 'Volume F' trash and other trash, in large zip-lock bags, that accompanied the Volume F trash. This is the first of two submitted papers on these wastes. This one will cover trash content, weight and water content. The other will report on the microbial Characterization of this trash. STS trash was usually made available within 2 days of landing at KSC. The Volume F bag was weighed, opened and the contents were catalogued and placed into one of the following categories: food waste (and containers), drink containers, personal hygiene items - including EVA maximum absorbent garments (MAGs)and Elbow packs (daily toilet wipes, etc), paper, and packaging materials - plastic firm and duct tape. Trash generation rates for the four STS missions: Total wet trash was 0.602 plus or minus 0.089 kg(sub wet) crew(sup -1) d(sup -1) containing about 25% water at 0.154 plus or minus 0.030 kg(sub water) crew(sup -1) d(sup -1) (avg plus or minus stdev). Cataloguing by category: personal hygiene wastes accounted for 50% of the total trash and 69% of the total water for the four missions; drink items were 16% of total weight and 16% water; food wastes were 22% of total weight and 15% of the water; office waste and plastic film were 2% and 11% of the total waste and did not contain any water. The results can be used by NASA to determine requirements and criteria for Waste Management Systems on future missions.

Strayer, Richard F.↗

Replication of Segments of STS-94 as a Lunar Surface Mission

The Artemis exploration plan will progress from initial Commercial Lunar Payloads Services (CLPS) landers to human landings to an established surface infrastructure supporting four crew for surface missions of a month or greater. NASA teams are currently working with partners to define the surface assets that will comprise this infrastructure, including habitation and laboratory facilities. However, design engineers often have limited insight into the laboratory capabilities needed inside a pressurized habitat or the demands such a facility will place upon crew availability. The Space Shuttle STS-94 Microgravity Science Laboratory (MSL-1) mission is used as an intravehicular activity science analog for the Surface Habitat. The STS-94 primary physical science instruments and crew activity in support of physical science investigations will be examined. Based on recent reference concepts for the Surface Habitat, options for incorporating the instruments and options for dividing physical science tasks among the Surface Habitat crew are discussed, based on STS94 crew tasks and assumptions for Surface Habitat operations. Crew size considerations are raised along with recommendations to reassess some of the current assumptions. Having shown that STS-94’s physical science investigations can be applied to a lunar surface mission, recommendations are made for increased attention to pressurized laboratory objectives, capabilities, and crew size.

Surface Habitat↗

In-flight radiation measurements on STS-60

A joint investigation between the United States and Russia to study the radiation environment inside the Space Shuttle flight STS-60 was carried out as part of the Shuttle-Mir Science Program (Phase 1). This is the first direct comparison of a number of different dosimetric measurement techniques between the two countries. STS-60 was launched on 3 February 1994 in a nearly circular 57 degrees x 353 km orbit with five U.S. astronauts and one Russian cosmonaut for 8.3 days. A variety of instruments provided crew radiation exposure, absorbed doses at fixed locations, neutron fluence and dose equivalent, linear energy transfer (LET) spectra of trapped and galactic cosmic radiation, and energy spectra and angular distribution of trapped protons. In general, there is good agreement between the U.S. and Russian measurements. The AP8 Min trapped proton model predicts an average of 1.8 times the measured absorbed dose. The average quality factor determined from measured lineal energy, y, spectra using a tissue equivalent proportional counter (TEPC), is in good agreement with that derived from the high temperature peak in the 6LiF thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs). The radiation exposure in the mid-deck locker from neutrons below 1 MeV was 2.53 +/- 1.33 microSv/day. The absorbed dose rates measured using a tissue equivalent proportional counter, were 171.1 +/- 0.4 and 127.4 +/- 0.4 microGy/day for trapped particles and galactic cosmic rays, respectively. The combined dose rate of 298.5 +/- 0.82 microGy/day is about a factor of 1.4 higher than that measured using TLDs. The westward longitude drift of the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) is estimated to be 0.22 +/- 0.02 degrees/y. We evaluated the effects of spacecraft attitudes on TEPC dose rates due to the highly anisotropic low-earth orbit proton environment. Changes in spacecraft attitude resulted in dose-rate variations by factors of up to 2 at the location of the TEPC.

NASA Discipline Radiation Health↗

Short Circuiting the Controller – Missteps in Maintenance and Inspection of Process and Wiring in STS-93

The primary objective of the Space Transportation System mission 93 (STS-93) was to deploy the Chandra X-Ray Observatory. Chandra, the world's most powerful X-Ray telescope, allowed scientists from around the world to study some of the most distant and dynamic objects in the universe. Stripped of nearly 7,000 pounds of its own gear to make room for the payload, the orbiter assigned to this mission was Space Shuttle Columbia. Prior to STS-93, Columbia had flown 25 flights and was NASA's oldest and heaviest orbiter. On July 23, 1999, after two prior launch scrubs, Eileen Collins and her crew of four launched from Kennedy Space Center. About five seconds after launch, Mission Control at Johnson Space Center detected a voltage drop on one of Columbia's electrical buses. As a result of this power fluctuation, a primary and back-up Main Engine controller dropped offline. Given design redundancy, the two remaining controllers supported all three engines. If there had been any other AC bus issues, one engine of the three on the Orbiter would have shut down. The redundant set of digital computer units in each engine controller saved Columbia and her crew from a very risky contingency abort. Post-flight inspection revealed soot on a screw head and a hole in an adjacent Kapton insulated wire. The single strand of polyimide wire was located nearly half-way down the payload bay. The Shuttle Independent Assessment Team (SIAT) reported that the wire had rubbed and chaffed against a burred screw head. The burr was later determined to be the result of overtightening of the screw by a technician during a maintenance refurbishment. Alone, the burr may not have been problematic, but later, during another ground processing event, possibly years after, someone inadvertently stepped on the wiring harness. With the pressure and motion of unintended contact, some of the Kapton insulation rubbed off against the burred screw head. The SIAT suspected the wire damage was pre-existing and was caused 4 or 5 years prior to the flight. Finally, the intense vibrations during the launch sequence allowed contact between the exposed conductor and exposed metal area on the burred screw head, resulting in the arcing and shorting of the wire. Due to the quick turnaround times of Space Shuttle Orbiters, wiring issues caused from multiple maintenance events were often overlooked. Additionally, failing to incorporate thorough and early inclusion of human systems integration (HSI) applications as a crucial part of the decision process can result in these types of misshaps. In order to reduce human error associated with integrated manufacturing, maintenance, refurbishment and flight preparations, wire inspection criteria should be refined and standardized, visual inspection processes should be quantified, and technicians should be certified by specially trained instructors. This case, among many others, unveils why human error management and development of safety metrics is a vital piece in the development of complex systems, and why it should be supported aggressively and implemented program wide.

Human Systems Integration↗

Use of STS subsystems and components for MMSE, volume 1

Multiuse mission support equipment (MMSE) is flight/ground equipment for the shuttle era which is used in conjunction with more than one mission payload. Initial verification of STS subsystem's applicability to MMSE is provided along with the cost savings potential and programmatic data needed for further program planning decisions. Some 70 MMSE requirements were found to be potentially satisfied by STS equipment, and and 6 items of particular interest were chosen for special emphasis. All were found to be feasible and beneficial. Program cost savings through their use are estimated to be substantial. Further study is recommended to identify additional MMSE requirements and hardware.

Source record↗

STS users study (study 2.2). Volume 1: Executive summary

The space transportation system (STS) and ancillary equipment user studies are presented. Space shuttle data and planning requirements needed by the STS user are discussed along with the potential for common usage of multi-mission support equipment by the military and other aerospace personnel.

Pritchard, E. I.↗

STS payloads mission control study continuation phase A-1. Volume 2-C, task 3: Identification of joint activities and estimation of resources in preparation for joint flight operations

Payload mission control concepts are developed for real time flight operations of STS. Flight planning, training, simulations, and other flight preparations are included. Payload activities for the preflight phase, activity sequences and organizational allocations, and traffic and experience factors to establish composite man-loading for joint STS payload activities are identified for flight operations from 1980 to 1985.

Source record↗

STS payloads mission control study phase A-1, volume 1, phases A and A-1

The Space Transportation System (STS) Payloads Mission Control Phase A-1 Study results are summarized. The composite resources required to accomplish Joint STS-Payload preflight preparation for joint flight operations, including flight planning, training, and simulations are presented. The Standard Payload Operations Control Center (POCC) concept was developed.

Source record↗

The STS pilot user development program

The planning and preparation activities and the results of the briefings associated with the Paris Air Show are described. A team of key personnel were available during the show to familiarize international users with the STS program and the space shuttle capabilities. Participation at the show included the operation of an STS booth at the U.S. pavilion, the presentation of several invitational briefings, and detailed discussions with individual organizations.

Mcdowell, J. R.↗