Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Crew Logistics”

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 163 records · Page 9

Multi-Operator Multi-UAV (MOMU) Control: Exploring the Influence of Sensor Tools and Playbook Task Delegation

New concepts of operations for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) will require a change from the current 2:1 operator to vehicle crew configuration. One particular control paradigm, largely driven by logistics, manpower, and training burdens, as well as the desire to force multiply, involves a single operator simultaneously managing multiple UAVs. This mode of operations has shown to significantly increase cognitive workload and decrease situation awareness, as operators are required to simultaneously attend to multiple sources of information. One potential way to mitigate potential drawbacks of multi-vehicle control by a single operator is to migrate to a multi-operator multi-UAV (MOMU) crew configuration, whereby M operators control N (> M) vehicles. This type of crew configuration can be organized in several ways to dynamically manage cognitive workload, match operator qualifications and skills to mission requirements, increase utilization of available assets, and thereby achieve maximum force multiplication. The present experiment examined task performance in a simulated MOMU environment and evaluated the potential benefits of sensor management aids ("Tools") as well as integrated sensor and flight automation ("Plays") compared to a fully manual condition ("Manual"). Tools support the operator by facilitating rapid understanding and management of sensor information, while the Plays support the operator by offloading/automating subtasks. Six pairs of participants were recruited for this study and tasked with sharing a pool of UAVs in order to conduct reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) missions in adjacent Areas of Operation (AOs). Participants were given four tasks to accomplish, in order of priority: 1) prosecute High Value Targets (HVTs); 2) identify / track targets (military vehicles); 3) identify / mark civilian vehicles; and 4) respond to chat messages. Performance on the mission tasks was measured in terms of accuracy and reaction time. A composite mission score was also calculated using a payoff matrix that weighted each task according to priority. The results indicate that Playbook demonstrated better performance overall with higher accuracy rates and the highest composite score compared to Tools and Manual. The implications of these results to supporting future MOMU concepts of operations is discussed.

Playbook↗

Gateway Lunar Habitat Modules as the Basis for a Modular Mars Transit Habitat

This paper provides a summary of the results from a recent concept study of various configurations for a Mars Transit Habitat. The designs considered are composed of modules based on published contractor concepts proposed for the lunar Gateway through NASA’s NextSTEP program. Using these Gateway concepts as a starting point for the design of a Mars Transit Habitat has potential advantages. Both Gateway and Mars Transit Habitats will have similar requirements for long-term operations in deep space, autonomous and remote operations when the crew is not onboard, and similar requirements for transferring crew to and from a planetary surface—the Moon and Mars respectively. The contractor designs for Gateway were traded against a monolithic transit habitat previously proposed by NASA’s Mars Integration Group. In addition, these concepts were considered for a “shakedown” mission for the transit habitat hardware in cislunar space to build confidence in new systems, including the advanced environmental control and life support systems needed for Mars missions. The results presented include overall vehicle configurations, mass, and volume estimates for the selected design concepts. Two concepts using large expandable modules are identified as leading candidates for a Mars Transit Habitat and the remaining elements are identified as representative of the habitable pressure vessels needed for safe haven configurations, logistics modules, surface habitats, rovers, and descent and ascent crew cabins in the overall Mars Architecture.

Smitherman, David↗

Using System Mass (SM), Equivalent Mass (EM), Equivalent System Mass (ESM) or Life Cycle Mass (LCM) in Advanced Life Support (ALS) Reporting

The Advanced Life Support (ALS) has used a single number, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), for both reporting progress and technology selection. ESM is the launch mass required to provide a space system. ESM indicates launch cost. ESM alone is inadequate for technology selection, which should include other metrics such as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and also consider perfom.arxe 2nd risk. ESM has proven difficult to implement as a reporting metric, partly because it includes non-mass technology selection factors. Since it will not be used exclusively for technology selection, a new reporting metric can be made easier to compute and explain. Systems design trades-off performance, cost, and risk, but a risk weighted cost/benefit metric would be too complex to report. Since life support has fixed requirements, different systems usually have roughly equal performance. Risk is important since failure can harm the crew, but it is difficult to treat simply. Cost is not easy to estimate, but preliminary space system cost estimates are usually based on mass, which is better estimated than cost. Amass-based cost estimate, similar to ESM, would be a good single reporting metric. The paper defines and compares four mass-based cost estimates, Equivalent Mass (EM), Equivalent System Mass (ESM), Life Cycle Mass (LCM), and System Mass (SM). EM is traditional in life support and includes mass, volume, power, cooling and logistics. ESM is the specifically defined ALS metric, which adds crew time and possibly other cost factors to EM. LCM is a new metric, a mass-based estimate of LCC measured in mass units. SM includes only the factors of EM that are originally measured in mass, the hardware and logistics mass. All four mass-based metrics usually give similar comparisons. SM is by far the simplest to compute and easiest to explain.

Jones, Harry↗

A Distributed Simulation Framework Applied to Artemis Analysis, Studies, Integration, and Test

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) established the Artemis Program, a series of missions to return humans to the Moon and explore further than before. To execute the Artemis missions, NASA is collaborating with commercial and international partners to create the necessary infrastructure and logistics plan that will establish a long term presence on the Moon ahead of exploring Mars. NASA and its partners are developing a collection of space and surface systems to support crewed missions to the lunar surface that will provide the mobility, habitation, logistics, and exploration support necessary for Artemis mission successes which includes robust scientific investigations. This paper details the design, capabilities, and uses of the Artemis Distributed Simulation (ADS) being developed by the NASA Exploration Systems Simulations (NExSyS) Team to support Artemis architecture studies. ADS utilizes international interoperability standards to connect a collection of independent vehicle and service simulations; these include but are not limited to elements such as rovers, landers, and habitation elements along with services like communications, environment, visualization, and data logging. ADS’s distributed nature allows for the complex aggregation of constituent Artemis elements; this includes efficient scenario modification with the addition or removal of individual simulations representing Artemis elements or services. This capability provides support for the rapid performance of various Artemis mission trade studies exploring alternate configurations. Currently, ADS uses NASA developed simulations for development and testing; however, through the use of international simulation interoperability standards, ADS provides an integration framework to incorporate dissimilar authoritative vendor simulations as Artemis systems mature and vendor simulations become available. Vendor simulations will be able to join ADS and interact with other Artemis elements and vehicles while limiting the exposure of proprietary data. This paper describes the expansion of an existing distributed simulation infrastructure to accommodate a collaborative and dynamic framework for the Artemis Program. This work includes updated federation designs, integration into existing NASA facilities, advancements in visualizations, and advancements in human driven inputs. This paper will also outline recently completed and ongoing support and collaboration with NASA studies and testing, namely results from energetics and Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) studies. The paper concludes with a plan for future developments and facility integration to enable enhanced studies in preparation for a return of humans to the lunar surface.

Artemis↗

STS-72 Flight Day 2

On this second day of the STS-72 mission, the flight crew, Cmdr. Brian Duffy, Pilot Brent W. Jett, and Mission Specialists Leroy Chiao, Daniel T. Barry, Winston E. Scott, and Koichi Wakata (NASDA), awakened to music from the motion picture 'Star Wars.' The crew performed a systems checkout, prepared for the retrieval of the Japanese Space Flyer Unit (SFU), tested the spacesuits for the EVA, and activated some of the secondary experiments. An in-orbit news interview was conducted with the crew via satellite downlinking. Questions asked ranged from the logistics of the mission to the avoidance procedures the Endeavour Orbiter performed to miss hitting the inactive Air Force satellite, nicknamed 'Misty' (MSTI). Earth views included cloud cover, several storm systems, and various land masses with several views of the shuttle's open cargo bay in the foreground.

Source record↗

A Study of a Lifting Body as a Space Station Crew Exigency Return Vehicle (CERV)

A lifting body is described for use as a return vehicle for crews from a space station. Reentry trajectories, subsystem weights and performance, and costs are included. The baseline vehicle is sized for a crew of eight. An alternate configuration is shown in which only four crew are carried with the extra volume reserved for logistics cargo. A water parachute recovery system is shown as an emergency alternative to a runway landing. Primary reaction control thrusters from the Shuttle program are used for orbital maneuvering while the Shuttle verniers are used for all attitude control maneuvers.

MacConochie, Ian O.↗

Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel

This annual report is based on the activities of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel in calendar year 2000. During this year, the construction of the International Space Station (ISS) moved into high gear. The launch of the Russian Service Module was followed by three Space Shuttle construction and logistics flights and the deployment of the Expedition One crew. Continuous habitation of the ISS has begun. To date, both the ISS and Space Shuttle programs have met or exceeded most of their flight objectives. In spite of the intensity of these efforts, it is clear that safety was always placed ahead of cost and schedule. This safety consciousness permitted the Panel to devote more of its efforts to examining the long-term picture. With ISS construction accelerating, demands on the Space Shuttle will increase. While Russian Soyuz and Progress spacecraft will make some flights, the Space Shuttle remains the primary vehicle to sustain the ISS and all other U.S. activities that require humans in space. Development of a next generation, human-rated vehicle has slowed due to a variety of technological problems and the absence of an approach that can accomplish the task significantly better than the Space Shuttle. Moreover, even if a viable design were currently available, the realities of funding and development cycles suggest that it would take many years to bring it to fruition. Thus, it is inescapable that for the foreseeable future the Space Shuttle will be the only human-rated vehicle available to the U.S. space program for support of the ISS and other missions requiring humans. Use of the Space Shuttle will extend well beyond current planning, and is likely to continue for the life of the ISS.

Source record↗

STS-114 Crew Interviews Eileen Collins, CDR

Commander Eileen Collins of the STS-114 space mission is seen during a pre-launch interview. She answers questions about the primary goals of the mission which are to exchange the expedition six and expedition seven crews. Also, she says that a large amount of logistics will be taken up to the International Space Station. The primary payload on this mission include: 1) The Utilization and Logistics Flight-1 (ULF-1); 2) Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM); and 3) External Stowage Platform (ESP-2) which are all explained in detail by the Commander. The Window Observational Research Facility (WORF) rack, Human Research Facility (HRF) rack, Minus Eighty Degree Laboratory Freezer (MELF) and EXPRESS rack are the Space Station equipment to be installed on the International Space Station (I.S.S.). Collins is the Intravehicular Activity (IVA) specialist for this mission who oversees the three Extravehicular Activity (EVA)'s performed by Mission Specialists Soichi Noguchi and Stephen Robinson. The three EVA's include an external camera installation, positioning devices for an ammonia system and the installation of Floating Potential Measuring Unit (FPMU). Commander Collins expresses that she wants to have a successful mission, and also wants to see the Earth from space.

Source record↗

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↗

In-situ resource utilization for the human exploration of Mars : a Bayesian approach to valuation of precursor missions

The need for sufficient quantities of oxygen, water, and fuel resources to support a crew on the surface of Mars presents a critical logistical issue of whether to transport such resources from Earth or manufacture them on Mars. An approach based on the classical Wildcat Drilling Problem of Bayesian decision theory was applied to the problem of finding water in order to compute the expected value of precursor mission sample information. An implicit (required) probability of finding water on Mars was derived from the value of sample information using the expected mass savings of alternative precursor missions.

water↗

Supportability Challenges, Metrics, and Key Decisions for Future Human Spaceflight

Future crewed missions beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) represent a logistical challenge that is unprecedented in human space flight. Astronauts will travel farther and stay in space for longer than any previous mission, far from timely abort or resupply from Earth. Under these conditions, supportability { defined as the set of system characteristics that influence the logistics and support required to enable safe and effective operations of systems { will be a much more significant driver of space system lifecycle properties than it has been in the past. This paper presents an overview of supportability for future human space flight. The particular challenges of future missions are discussed, with the differences between past, present, and future missions highlighted. The relationship between supportability metrics and mission cost, performance, schedule, and risk is also discussed. A set of pro- posed strategies for managing supportability is presented (including reliability growth, uncertainty reduction, level of repair, commonality, redundancy, In-Space Manufacturing (ISM) (including the use of material recycling and In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) for spares and maintenance items), reduced complexity, and spares inventory decisions such as the use of predeployed or cached spares - along with a discussion of the potential impacts of each of those strategies. References are provided to various sources that describe these supportability metrics and strategies, as well as associated modeling and optimization techniques, in greater detail. Overall, supportability is an emergent system characteristic and a holistic challenge for future system development. System designers and mission planners must carefully consider and balance the supportability metrics and decisions described in this paper in order to enable safe and effective beyond-LEO human space flight.

Owens, Andrew C.↗

Synthetic Biology to Support Human Exploration of Deep Space

The International Space Station (ISS) has enabled a continuous human presence in space since November 2000. The ISS is in low Earth orbit, facilitating regular resupply missions to deliver air, water, food, spare parts, and science experiments. NASA’s Moon to Mars campaign seeks to return humans to the Moon and prepare for crewed missions to Mars. Increased distance from Earth poses logistical challenges to provide all resources needed by humans for deep space missions. NASA Ames Research Center is conducting a series of synthetic biology projects to test the use of microbes for on-demand biosynthesis of human micronutrients. The BioNutrients spaceflight experiments test an implementation concept to produce fermented food products in which microbe growth enhances micronutrient content. On-demand production of carotenoids was engineered into two yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) strains that have been tested in nearly 5 years of storage. One of the BioNutrients strains will be incorporated into the Lunar Explorer Instrument for Space Biology Applications (LEIA) project. LEIA is developing an instrument suite to be delivered to the lunar south pole region by the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. The LEIA instrument suite will be used to measure multiple yeast strains for growth, metabolic activity, and synthetic biology-enabled production of carotenoids, while taking real time measurements of biologically relevant radiation exposure on the lunar surface. LEIA data will be used to assess the impact of lunar surface radiation and reduced gravity on the production of engineered traits.

Synthetic Biology↗

Advanced construction management for lunar base construction - Surface operations planner

The study proposes a conceptual solution and lays the framework for developing a new, sophisticated and intelligent tool for a lunar base construction crew to use. This concept integrates expert systems for critical decision making, virtual reality for training, logistics and laydown optimization, automated productivity measurements, and an advanced scheduling tool to form a unique new planning tool. The concept features extensive use of computers and expert systems software to support the actual work, while allowing the crew to control the project from the lunar surface. Consideration is given to a logistics data base, laydown area management, flexible critical progress scheduler, video simulation of assembly tasks, and assembly information and tracking documentation.

Kehoe, Robert P.↗

International Space Station (ISS) Advanced Recycle Filter Tank Assembly (ARFTA)

The International Space Station (ISS) Recycle Filter Tank Assembly (RFTA) provides the following three primary functions for the Urine Processor Assembly (UPA): volume for concentrating/filtering pretreated urine, filtration of product distillate, and filtration of the Pressure Control and Pump Assembly (PCPA) effluent. The RFTAs, under nominal operations, are to be replaced every 30 days. This poses a significant logistical resupply problem, as well as cost in upmass and new tanks purchase. In addition, it requires significant amount of crew time. To address and resolve these challenges, NASA required Boeing to develop a design which eliminated the logistics and upmass issues and minimize recurring costs. Boeing developed the Advanced Recycle Filter Tank Assembly (ARFTA) that allowed the tanks to be emptied on-orbit into disposable tanks that eliminated the need for bringing the fully loaded tanks to earth for refurbishment and relaunch, thereby eliminating several hundred pounds of upmass and its associated costs. The ARFTA will replace the RFTA by providing the same functionality, but with reduced resupply requirements

Nasrullah, Mohammed K.↗

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗

STS-111 Crew Interviews: Phillippe Perrin, Mission Specialist 1

STS-111 Mission Specialist 1 Phillippe Perrin is seen during this preflight interview, where he gives a quick overview of his mission before answering questions about his inspiration to become an astronaut and his career path. Perrin outlines his role in the mission in general, and specifically during the docking and extravehicular activities (EVAs). He describes what the crew exchange will be like (transferring the Expedition 5 crew in place of the Expedition 4 crew on the International Space Station (ISS)) and the payloads (Mobile Base System (MBS) and the Leonardo Multi-Purpose Logistics Module). Perrin discusses the planned EVAs in detail and outlines what supplies will be left for the resident crew of the ISS. He also provides his thoughts about the significance of the mission to France and the value of the ISS.

Source record↗

STS-111 Flight Day 8 Highlights

On Flight Day 8 of STS-111 (Space Shuttle Endeavour crew includes: Kenneth Cockrell, Commander; Paul Lockhart, Pilot; Franklin Chang-Diaz, Mission Specialist; Philippe Perrin, Mission Specialist; International Space Station (ISS) Expedition 5 crew includes Valery Korzun, Commander; Peggy Whitson, Flight Engineer; Sergei Treschev, Flight Engineer; ISS Expedition 4 crew includes: Yury Onufrienko, Commander; Daniel Bursch, Flight Engineer; Carl Walz, Flight Engineer), the Leonardo Multi Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) is shown from the outside of the ISS. The MPLM, used to transport goods to the station for the Expedition 5 crew, and to return goods used by the Expedition 4 crew, is being loaded and unloaded by crewmembers. Live video from within the Destiny Laboratory Module shows Whitson and Chang-Diaz. They have just completed the second of three reboosts planned for this mission, in each of which the station will gain an additional statutory mile in altitude. Following this there is an interview conducted by ground-based reporters with some members from each of the three crews, answering various questions on their respective missions including sleeping in space and conducting experiments. Video of Earth and space tools precedes a second interview much like the first, but with the crews in their entirety. Topics discussed include the feelings of Bursch and Walz on their breaking the US record for continual days spent in space. The video ends with footage of the Southern California coastline.

Source record↗

STS-105 Post-Flight

The crewmembers of STS-105, Commander Scott Horowitz, Pilot Fred Sturckow, and Mission Specialists Dan Barry and Pat Forrester, narrate this video as footage from the mission is seen, starting with the boarding and launch of Discovery. Various on-orbit activities are shown, including on-orbit activities (H Reflex Experiment), the rendezvous and docking of Discovery with the International Space Station (ISS), the transfer of materials from the Multipurpose Logistics Module, extravehicular activities, and the exchange of resident ISS crews. The video ends with Discovery undocking from the ISS and the landing of the orbiter.

Source record↗