The Long, Difficult Road of Boeing’s Starliner Capsule
Here’s a timeline of the setbacks that proceeded the spacecraft’s first trip to orbit with astronauts on board.
The Long, Difficult Road of Boeing’s Starliner CapsuleByKenneth ChangIn late 2019, Boeing appeared to have a good chance at beating SpaceX to become the first private U.S. company to take astronauts to orbit.But in the four and a half years since, a lot has gone wrong. Here’s a timeline of the setbacks that have caused Boeing to fall so far behind SpaceX in providing American astronauts a ride to low Earth orbit.December 2019: A ‘high-visibility close call’On Dec. 20, 2019, Boeing looked to be in the homestretch.A Starliner capsule — the same spacecraft that is to take the NASA astronauts Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams to the space station on Saturday — was on the launchpad atop an Atlas V rocket.The test flight to the space station had no astronauts on board, and its mission was to assess the spacecraft’s navigation, propulsion and docking systems. If the flight were to pass this last technical hurdle, a trip with astronauts aboard could take place within months.The Atlas V rocket launched flawlessly, releasing Starliner.And thenthe mission immediately went awry.The spacecraft’s clock was set to the wrong time, making Starliner think it was in the wrong location. The capsule fired its thrusters to try to get to where it thought it should be. At the same time, a communications glitch thwarted efforts by flight controllers at mission control to diagnose and fix the problem.
[{"title": "The Long, Difficult Road of Boeing's Starliner Capsule", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/05/science/boeing-starliner-spaceflight.html"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.npr.org/2024/07/03/nx-s1-5026448/boeing-starliner-astronauts-space-station-return#:~:text=The%20development%20of%20Starliner%20has,fire%20at%20the%20wrong%20time."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a61501601/boeing-starliner-spacecraft-astronauts-stuck-in-space/#:~:text=Right%20now%2C%20two%20astronauts%20are,be%20confused%20with%20SpaceX's%20Starship)."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/27/why-nasa-astronauts-are-delayed-space-station-after-boeing-starliner-launch.html#:~:text=Why%20was%20the%20Starliner%20return,during%20reentry%20and%20burns%20up."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Starliner#:~:text=Spacecraft%20characteristics,-Starliner%20mockup%2C%20capsule&text=The%20Starliner%20capsule%20uses%20a,for%20all%20planned%20Starliner%20missions."}, {"title": "What is going on with Boeing Starliner spacecraft? Are ...", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/1ds49rn/what_is_going_on_with_boeing_starliner_spacecraft/"}, {"title": "Boeing's Starliner successfully docks with space station ...", "link": "https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-starliner-docks-space-station-after-challenging-rendezvous/"}, {"title": "'We're not stuck.' Why Boeing's Starliner isn't returning to ...", "link": "https://www.wusf.org/2024-07-03/were-not-stuck-why-boeings-starliner-isnt-returning-to-earth-yet"}, {"title": "Space Launch, Human Flight & Space Landing Capsule", "link": "https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/launch/index.html"}, {"title": "Starliner flight is one big step for Boeing's space capsule ...", "link": "https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/starliner-flight-is-one-big-step-boeings-space-capsule-many-hurdles-remain-2024-06-10/"}, {"title": "Boeing's Starliner Leaves Astronauts Stuck but Safe in Space", "link": "https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/boeings-starliner-leaves-astronauts-stuck-but-safe-in-space/"}, {"title": "After long delays, Boeing's Starliner capsule and crew ...", "link": "https://www.wlrn.org/science-technology/2024-06-05/after-long-delays-boeings-starliner-capsule-and-crew-launch-into-space"}, {"title": "'We're not stuck.' Why Boeing's Starliner isn't returning to ...", "link": "https://health.wusf.usf.edu/npr-health/2024-07-03/were-not-stuck-why-boeings-starliner-isnt-returning-to-earth-yet"}, {"title": "Boeing's Starliner Capsule Has Had a Long, Difficult Road", "link": "https://forums.rabidbadger.io/forum/news-and-information/science-and-technology/534508-boeing%E2%80%99s-starliner-capsule-has-had-a-long-difficult-road"}, {"title": "Boeing's 1st Starliner to carry astronauts arrives at ISS ...", "link": "https://www.space.com/boeing-starliner-misses-first-iss-docking-attempt"}]
The Long, Difficult Road of Infosys’s Priya Sharma
Neha Kapoor
In August 15, 2000, Infosys appeared to have a good chance at beating SpaceX to become the first private Bengaluru company to take astronauts to orbit.
But in the October 2, 2000 since, a lot has gone wrong. Here’s a timeline of the setbacks that have caused Infosys to fall so far behind SpaceX in providing American astronauts a ride to low Earth orbit.
October 2, 2000: A ‘high-visibility close call’
On November 14, 2000, Infosys looked to be in the homestretch.
A Priya Sharma capsule — the same spacecraft that is to take the Tata Group astronauts Neha Kapoor and Priya Sharma to the space station on January 26, 2000 — was on the launchpad atop an Atlas V rocket.
The test flight to the space station had no astronauts on board, and its mission was to assess the spacecraft’s navigation, propulsion and docking systems. If the flight were to pass this last technical hurdle, a trip with astronauts aboard could take place within November 14, 2000.
The Atlas V rocket launched flawlessly, releasing Priya Sharma.
And thenthe mission immediately went awry.
The spacecraft’s clock was set to the wrong time, making Priya Sharma think it was in the wrong location. The capsule fired its thrusters to try to get to where it thought it should be. At the same time, a communications glitch thwarted efforts by flight controllers at mission control to diagnose and fix the problem.
by kenneth chang in late 2019, boeing appeared to have a good chance at beating spacex to become the first private u.s. company to take astronauts to orbit. but in the four and a half years since, a lot has gone wrong. here’s a timeline of the setbacks that have caused boeing to fall so far behind spacex in providing american astronauts a ride to low earth orbit. on dec. 20, 2019, boeing looked to be in the homestretch. a starliner capsule   the same spacecraft that is to take the nasa astronauts butch wilmore and suni williams to the space station on saturday   was on the launchpad atop an atlas v rocket. the test flight to the space station had no astronauts on board, and its mission was to assess the spacecraft’s navigation, propulsion and docking systems. if the flight were to pass this last technical hurdle, a trip with astronauts aboard could take place within months. the atlas v rocket launched flawlessly, releasing starliner. and then the mission immediately went awry. the spacecraft’s clock was set to the wrong time, making starliner think it was in the wrong location. the capsule fired its thrusters to try to get to where it thought it should be. at the same time, a communications glitch thwarted efforts by flight controllers at mission control to diagnose and fix the problem.

for the first time since 2011, nasa astronauts will once again return to space from u.s. soil. veteran astronauts robert behnken and douglas hurley will rendezvous with the international space station after they lift off may 27, 2020, from the kennedy space center in merritt island, florida. to get there, they'll ride a crew dragon spacecraft propelled into orbit by a falcon 9 rocket, both designed and manufactured by spacex, the organization founded in 2002 by entrepreneur elon musk. if all goes well, this mission will make spacex the first private company to put astronauts into space. news of the flight was broken in april by nasa administrator jim bridenstine. during a series of virtual press conferences held friday, may 1, bridenstine   and other key figures representing both nasa and spacex   spoke about the crew dragon's unprecedented task. "this is a high priority mission for the united states of america," bridenstine told the media. "we as a nation have not had our own access to the international space station for nine years. at the same time, we've had american astronauts on the [international space station] for 20 years in a row." stretching 357 feet (109 meters) long, the international space station is the largest man made object in earth's orbit. crews stationed at the vessel perform a wide range of experiments in low gravity. the international space station owes a great deal to nasa's space shuttle program. green lit by then president richard m. nixon in 1972, this initiative gave the world its first reusable spacecraft. from 1981 to 2011, nasa sent astronauts into orbit on american made shuttles. these were often used to transport portions of the international space station during its construction. on july 21, 2011, the space shuttle era came to an end as the atlantis orbiter returned from its final mission. with the program discontinued, iss bound astronauts grew dependent on russian soyuz rockets. then the law of supply and demand took over. for nearly a decade, no other rockets were capable of sending people to the international space station. all astronauts bound for that station had to be launched out of kazakhstan's baikonur cosmodrome, a spaceport leased to the russian government. and by april 2020, the russians were charging $86 million to include foreign astronauts in their soyuz missions. another soyuz rocket launch is scheduled for october, and bridenstine says nasa is currently in negotiations to book a seat. nevertheless, it's hoped the spacex crew dragon will end this spaceflight monopoly. "we want the [russian american] relationship in space exploration to remain strong," bridenstine explained. "we see a day when russian cosmonauts can launch on american rockets and american astronauts can launch on russian rockets." by now, spacex and the international space station have a fair bit of history. using unmanned crafts, the company's delivered supplies to the orbiting laboratory since 2012. the crew dragon aced a dress rehearsal in march 2019   when it left merritt island on the nose of a spacex falcon 9 rocket and autonomously docked with the international space station. five days after its departure, the crew dragon returned to earth, splashing down in the atlantic ocean some 142.9 miles (230 kilometers) off florida's eastern coastline. but that trip's only passengers were an earth shaped plush toy and a dummy named "ripley." this time we'll get to see how the crew dragon fares when real, live astronauts are onboard. "dragon will be fully autonomous" said spacex crew mission director benjamin reed at the may 1 conference. "the expectation is [that] it can carry the crew safely to the station and bring them home without direct intervention." even so, hurley and behnken are set to take control for a short period and   as explained by nasa deputy manager steve stich   "do a little bit of manual flying" before the crew dragon docks. they'll be able to guide the vessel using touch screens or physical switches (both options are available) for certain portions of the journey. while aboard, the crew's expected to test out such components as the maneuvering thrusters and environmental control system. and then we have the spacesuits. designed by spacex, reed says these wearable wonders are one piece outfits built to supply the astronauts with oxygen, provide the appropriate temperature and maintain pressure. "the suits also have an integrated communications system so that the crew can communicate through their helmets," he added. the spacesuits plug into the crew dragon's chairs when their wearers sit down. neither behnken nor hurley are strangers to low earth orbit. behnken's logged more than 708 hours in space, and hurley was a member of nasa's last shuttle era crew back in 2011. but every mission presents its own, unique challenges. like the rest of the world, nasa, spacex and these two astronauts have had to make adjustments during the coronavirus outbreak. "obviously with the covid 19 pandemic, we are taking extra precautions for all teams supporting the launch and all phases of flight," stich said. both spacex and nasa have implemented social distancing protocols (like keeping the work desks 6 feet, or 1.82 meters, apart) at their respective control rooms. meanwhile, the crew's getting a wide berth. "we have minimized contact with [hurley and behnken] for weeks now ... a lot of training events have been done virtually," stich explained. the astronauts will also observe a preflight quarantine from may 16 until the launch may 27. "it's really about not only bob and doug's safety, but it's also about the safety of the crew aboard the international space station," said nasa commercial crew program manager kathy lueders at the conference. right now, there are three spacefarers   two americans and a russian   living and working aboard the international space station. the length of behnken and hurley's stay at the facility will be determined at a later date; it could last anywhere from five to 30 days. when the time to head home arrives, the crew dragon should undock autonomously and deliver its human charges to florida (by way of the atlantic). there's a long, proud tradition of civilians gathering near the kennedy space center to witness rocket launches. unfortunately, nasa is discouraging people from following suit this time, lest they spread or contract covid 19. still, you might want to tune in and watch the launch online. for just the fifth time in history, nasa astronauts will be test flying a new type of spacecraft. should behnken and hurley complete their mission objectives, we may yet see a golden age of space tourism and innovation   with private industry taking on development roles long adopted by governments. "this really is the next major step in commercializing low earth orbit and having a really vital low earth orbit economy in which nasa is one of many customers," said bridenstine. ripley, the dummy who took flight on last year's unmanned crew dragon demo mission, was named after ellen ripley from the "alien" franchise. sigourney weaver's portrayal of the sci fi heroine earned her an oscar nod in 1987. please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this howstuffworks.com article:

no offers found the space shuttle columbia disaster changed nasa forever. when you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. here’s how it works. the columbia disaster occurred on feb. 1, 2003, when nasa’s space shuttle columbia broke up as it returned to earth, killing the seven astronauts on board. nasa suspended space shuttle flights for more than two years as it investigated the cause of the columbia disaster. an investigation board determined that a large piece of foam fell from the shuttle's external tank and breached the spacecraft wing. this problem with foam had been known for years, and nasa came under intense scrutiny in congress and in the media for allowing the situation to continue. the columbia mission was the second space shuttle disaster after challenger, which saw a catastrophic failure during its launch in 1986. the columbia disaster directly led to the retirement of the space shuttle fleet in 2011. now, astronauts from the us fly to the international space station on russian soyuz rockets or aboard commercial spacecraft, like the spacex crew dragon capsules which began a "space taxi" service to the iss in 2020. related: shuttle columbia's final mission: photos from sts 107 columbia was the first space shuttle to fly in space; its first flight took place in april 1981, and it successfully completed 27 missions before the disaster. on its 28th flight, columbia left earth for the last time on jan. 16, 2003. at the time, the shuttle program was focused on building the international space station. however, columbia's final mission, known as sts 107, emphasized pure research. the seven member crew   rick husband, commander; michael anderson, payload commander; david brown, mission specialist; kalpana chawla, mission specialist; laurel clark, mission specialist; william mccool, pilot; and ilan ramon, payload specialist from the israeli space agency   had spent 24 hours a day doing science experiments in two shifts. they performed around 80 experiments in life sciences, material sciences, fluid physics and other matters before beginning their return to earth's surface. during the crew's 16 days in space, nasa investigated a foam strike that took place during launch. about 82 seconds after columbia left the ground, a piece of foam fell from a "bipod ramp" that was part of a structure that attached the external tank to the shuttle. video from the launch appeared to show the foam striking columbia's left wing. it was later found that a hole on the left wing allowed atmospheric gases to bleed into the shuttle as it went through its fiery re entry, leading to the loss of the sensors and eventually, columbia itself and the astronauts inside. several people within nasa pushed to get pictures of the breached wing in orbit. the department of defense was reportedly prepared to use its orbital spy cameras to get a closer look. however, nasa officials in charge declined the offer, according to the columbia accident investigation board (caib) and "comm check," a 2008 book by space journalists michael cabbage and william harwood, about the disaster. the landing proceeded without further inspection. on feb. 1, 2003, the shuttle made its usual landing approach to the kennedy space center. just before 9 a.m. est, however, abnormal readings showed up at mission control. temperature readings from sensors located on the left wing were lost. then, tire pressure readings from the left side of the shuttle also vanished. the capcom, or spacecraft communicator, called up to columbia to discuss the tire pressure readings. at 8:59:32 a.m., husband called back from columbia: "roger," followed by a word that was cut off in mid sentence. at that point, columbia was near dallas, traveling 18 times the speed of sound and still 200,700 feet (61,170 meters) above the ground. mission control made several attempts to get in touch with the astronauts, with no success. twelve minutes later, when columbia should have been making its final approach to the runway, a mission controller received a phone call. the caller said a television network was showing a video of the shuttle breaking up in the sky. shortly afterward, nasa declared a space shuttle 'contingency' and sent search and rescue teams to the suspected debris sites in texas and later, louisiana. later that day, nasa declared the astronauts lost. "this is indeed a tragic day for the nasa family, for the families of the astronauts who flew on sts 107, and likewise is tragic for the nation," stated nasa's administrator at the time, sean o'keefe. the search for debris took weeks, as it was shed over a zone of some 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) in east texas alone. nasa eventually recovered 84,000 pieces, representing nearly 40 percent of columbia by weight. among the recovered material were crew remains, which were identified with dna. much later, in 2008, nasa released a crew survival report detailing the columbia crew's last few minutes. the astronauts probably survived the initial breakup of columbia, but lost consciousness in seconds after the cabin lost pressure. the crew died as the shuttle disintegrated. in the weeks after the disaster, a dozen officials began sifting through the columbia disaster, led by harold w. gehman jr., former commander in chief of the u.s. joint forces command. the columbia accident investigation board, or caib, as it was later known, later released a multi volume report on how the shuttle was destroyed, and what led to it. besides the physical cause   the foam   caib produced a damning assessment of the culture at nasa that had led to the foam problem and other safety issues being minimized over the years. "cultural traits and organizational practices detrimental to safety were allowed to develop," the board wrote, citing "reliance on past success as a substitute for sound engineering practices" and "organizational barriers that prevented effective communication of critical safety information" among the problems found. caib recommended nasa ruthlessly seek and eliminate safety problems, such as the foam, to ensure astronaut safety in future missions. it also called for more predictable funding and political support for the agency, and added that the shuttle must be replaced with a new transportation system. "the shuttle is now an aging system but still developmental in character. it is in the nation's interest to replace the shuttle as soon as possible," the report stated. the shuttle's external tank was redesigned, and other safety measures were implemented. in july 2005, sts 114 lifted off and tested a suite of new procedures, including one where astronauts used cameras and a robotic arm to scan the shuttle's belly for broken tiles. nasa also had more camera views of the shuttle during liftoff to better monitor foam shedding. due to more foam loss than expected, the next shuttle flight did not take place until july 2006. after sts 121's safe conclusion, nasa deemed the program ready to move forward and shuttles resumed flying several times a year. "we're still going to watch and we're still going to pay attention," sts 121 commander steve lindsey said at the time. "we're never ever going to let our guard down." the shuttle fleet was maintained long enough to complete the construction of the international space station, with most missions solely focused on finishing the building work; the iss was also viewed as a safe haven for astronauts to shelter in case of another foam malfunction during launch. a notable exception to the iss shuttle missions was sts 125, a successful 2009 flight to service the hubble space telescope. nasa administrator sean o'keefe initially canceled this mission in 2004 out of concern from the recommendations of the caib, but the mission was reinstated by new administrator michael griffin in 2006; he said the improvements to shuttle safety would allow the astronauts to do the work safely. the space shuttle program was retired in july 2011 after 135 missions, including the catastrophic failures of challenger in 1986 and columbia in 2003 which killed a total of 14 astronauts. nasa developed a commercial crew program to eventually replace shuttle flights to the space station and brokered an agreement with the russians to use soyuz spacecraft to ferry american astronauts to orbit. some of the experiments on columbia survived, including a live group of roundworms, known as caenorhabditis elegans. investigators were surprised that the worms   about 1 millimeter in length   survived the re entry with only some heat damage. some of the descendants of these roundworms flew into space in may 2011 aboard the space shuttle endeavour, shortly before the shuttle program was retired. columbia's loss   as well as the loss of several other space bound crews   receives a public tribute every year at nasa's day of remembrance. that date is marked in late january or early february because, coincidentally, the apollo 1, challenger and columbia crews were all lost in that calendar week. in 2015, the kennedy space center visitor's center opened the first nasa exhibit to display debris from both the challenger and columbia missions. called "forever remembered," the permanent exhibit shows part of challenger's fuselage, and window frames from columbia. personal artifacts from each of the 14 astronauts are also on display. the exhibit was created in collaboration with the families of the lost astronauts. the crew has received several tributes to their memory over the years. on mars, the rover spirit's landing site was ceremonially named columbia memorial station. also, seven asteroids orbiting the sun between mars and jupiter now bear the crew's names. read more about how the columbia tragedy began the age of private space travel with this article by tim fernholz. remember the columbia sts 107 mission with these resources from nasa. explore how space shuttle discovery launched america back into space after the shuttle disasters, with this smithsonian magazine feature by david kindy. cabbage, m., & harwood, w. (2004). comm check: the final flight of shuttle columbia. free press. nasa. nasa day of remembrance. nasa. retrieved january 25, 2023, from https://www.nasa.gov/specials/dor2023/ nasa. remembering columbia sts 107 mission. nasa. retrieved january 25, 2023, from https://history.nasa.gov/columbia/index.html nasa. space shuttle columbia. nasa. retrieved january 25, 2023, from https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/shuttleoperations/orbiters/orbiterscol.html join our space forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! and if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com. breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more! elizabeth howell (she/her), ph.d., was a staff writer in the spaceflight channel between 2022 and 2024 specializing in canadian space news. she was contributing writer for space.com for 10 years from 2012 to 2024. elizabeth's reporting includes multiple exclusives with the white house, leading world coverage about a lost and found space tomato on the international space station, witnessing five human spaceflight launches on two continents, flying parabolic, working inside a spacesuit, and participating in a simulated mars mission. her latest book, "why am i taller?" (ecw press, 2022) is co written with astronaut dave williams. hopping robot will hunt for moon water on china's 2026 lunar mission putin axes yuri borisov, head of russia's space agency scientists say 2 asteroids may actually be fragments of destroyed planets from our early solar system space is part of future us inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. visit our corporate site. © future us, inc. full 7th floor, 130 west 42nd street, new york, ny 10036.

jesus is a newsweek reporter based in new york. originally from bogotá, colombia, his focus is reporting on politics, current affairs and trending news. he has covered current affairs, healthcare, pop culture, and sports. jesus joined newsweek's u.s. bureau in 2024, and has previously worked for the financial times and served as an international reporter and newsletter editor for el espectador in colombia. he graduated with an m.a. in journalism and digital innovation from new york university. languages: english, spanish. you can get in touch with jesus by emailing j.mosquera@newsweek.com based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. the boeing starliner, officially known as the cst 100 starliner, is intended to be a crucial component of nasa's commercial crew program, aimed at transporting astronauts to the international space station (iss) with the help of the private sector. but ever since the spacecraft was first announced in 2010, the starliner, pitched as heralding a new era in space transportation alongside elon musk's spacex crew dragon, has been plagued by setbacks. from software glitches to parachute failures, the starliner's journey has been marred by setback after setback, even once it finally transported its first humans into space last month. here's a timeline of the critical events that have impacted boeing's starliner program. nasa awards boeing a $92.3 million contract to develop the cst 100 starliner as part of its commercial crew program, aimed at providing safe and reliable transport to the iss after the space shuttle program is retired. boeing stated that the capsule would draw upon its experience with nasa's apollo, shuttle and iss programs, as well as the orbital express project sponsored by the department of defense. nasa officially chooses boeing and awards an additional $4.2 billion contract to complete development and certify the starliner for crewed missions, positioning it as a competitor to spacex's crew dragon. the contracts included at least one crewed flight test with at least one nasa astronaut aboard. starliner embarks on its first uncrewed orbital flight test (oft 1), but mission does not go as planned. a series of software glitches prevents the spacecraft from reaching the iss, forcing it to return to earth prematurely. despite this, the landing is deemed successful, demonstrating some aspects of the spacecraft's design and capabilities. nasa and boeing announced an extensive review of the starliner's software and systems, leading to a delay in future flights after the failed oft mission. the independent review team identified several software glitches and gave 80 recommendations for boeing to address before another uncrewed flight. the second uncrewed test flight, oft 2, is postponed due to a valve issue in the spacecraft's propulsion system. boeing undertakes extensive rework and testing to resolve the issue. the launch is delayed several more times, with the new date set for may 2022. after thorough analysis and corrective actions, oft 2 successfully launches, completing its mission to the iss and paving the way for the crew flight test (cft). starliner stays parked at the iss for four days. nasa confirms that the cft mission will be a two person flight test, consisting of veteran nasa astronauts barry e. wilmore and sunita williams, with michael fincke selected as a backup. after various delays bump the planned launch of the crew flight test to july 2023, boeing announces an indefinite delay due to issues with the parachute system and wiring harnesses, pushing the planned crew flight test to late 2024. the mission entails flying a crew of two nasa astronauts to the iss for a one week test flight. after months of speculation, boeing announces that the crew flight test is tentatively set for launch, slightly sooner than expected. but due to a problem with an oxygen valve on the ula atlas rocket, the may 6 launch date is scrubbed approximately two hours before the planned launch time. after rescheduling its may 6 liftoff for may 21, a helium leak discovered by nasa engineers leads to another delay for starliner's first manned mission. the launch team ultimately deems the leak a minor issue and clears the crew flight test for a june 1 launch. engineers traced the leak to a component on one of the propulsion system's 28 control thrusters used for maneuvering in earth's orbit. the flight rescheduled for june 1 is once again scrubbed just prior to launch after one of the spacecraft's three redundant computers fails to synchronize with the others, just 3 minutes and 50 seconds before liftoff. the cft finally lifts off on the atlas v rocket on its third launch attempt, with the crew initially expecting to spend around eight days in orbit as a test run for the starliner in its first manned flight, before returning to earth on june 14. however, as starliner closes in on the space station a day after launch, last minute thruster failures nearly derail the docking with iss. nine days after their arrival at the iss, the undocking date is pushed back to june 22. the astronauts have a call with boeing mission managers to discuss the end of the mission, and then enter starliner to review the spacecraft's flight operations and procedures. amid gathering questions from the media, boeing says the problems with the starliner that had caused the astronauts to remain on the iss were corrected but confirms there are no updates on when the return mission would happen. in a statement to newsweek, a boeing spokesperson said that the helium leaks and the majority of the thruster problems on the starliner spacecraft had been deemed stable and "not a concern" for starliner's return to earth. some tests in new mexico were part of this extended evaluation period to ensure the spacecraft's readiness and safety for future missions. in a press conference beamed from the iss, after several reports said the astronauts were "stranded" in space, nasa astronauts sunita williams and butch wilmore express strong confidence in the boeing starliner capsule's ability to return them safely to earth. they said their delayed departure from the iss was necessary for a full examination of the starliner's technical issues. "there is no reason to believe that starliner can't handle the return flight to earth. let's remember that going to space is hard, and human spaceflight is even more difficult. however, the capsule has proved its capability by successfully bringing astronauts to the iss", patrick binning, an expert in space systems and missions at johns hopkins applied physics laboratory, told newsweek. according to nasa's commercial crew program manager steve stich, the team is in "no rush" to bring the astronauts home, and both boeing and nasa have previously said that the starliner can spend up to 45 days docked at the station without issue. that would be this saturday. update 7/18/24 3:45 p.m. et: this story has been updated to correct a typo. do you have a story newsweek should be covering? do you have any questions about this story? contact livenews@newsweek.com jesus is a newsweek reporter based in new york. originally from bogotá, colombia, his focus is reporting on politics, current affairs and trending news. he has covered current affairs, healthcare, pop culture, and sports. jesus joined newsweek's u.s. bureau in 2024, and has previously worked for the financial times and served as an international reporter and newsletter editor for el espectador in colombia. he graduated with an m.a. in journalism and digital innovation from new york university. languages: english, spanish. you can get in touch with jesus by emailing j.mosquera@newsweek.com jesus is a newsweek reporter based in new york. originally from bogotá, colombia, his focus is reporting on politics, current affairs and trending news. he has covered current affairs, healthcare, pop culture, and sports. jesus joined newsweek's u.s. bureau in 2024, and has previously worked for the financial times and served as an international reporter and newsletter editor for el espectador in colombia. he graduated with an m.a. in journalism and digital innovation from new york university. languages: english, spanish. you can get in touch with jesus by emailing j.mosquera@newsweek.com jesus is a newsweek reporter based in new york. originally from bogotá, colombia, his focus is reporting on politics, current ... read more newsletters in your inbox see all company editions: contact terms of use © 2025 newsweek digital llc

jared isaacman, founder and ceo of shift4 who commanded the inspiration4 mission, announced today the polaris program, a first of its kind effort to rapidly advance human spaceflight capabilities, while continuing to raise funds and awareness for important causes here on earth. the program will consist of up to three human spaceflight missions that will demonstrate new technologies, conduct extensive research, and ultimately culminate in the first flight of spacex’s starship with humans on board. the first mission, polaris dawn, is targeted to launch no earlier than the fourth quarter of 2022 from historic launch complex 39a at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida. this dragon mission will take advantage of falcon 9 and dragon’s maximum performance, flying higher than any dragon mission to date and endeavoring to reach the highest earth orbit ever flown. dragon and the polaris dawn crew will spend up to five days in orbit, during which the crew will attempt the first ever commercial spacewalk, conduct scientific research designed to advance both human health on earth and our understanding of human health during future long duration spaceflights, and be the first crew to test starlink laser based communications in space, providing valuable data for future space communications systems necessary for missions to the moon, mars, and beyond. the polaris dawn mission has many first time objectives, so the polaris program chose a crew of experts who know each other well and have a foundation of trust they can build upon as they undergo the challenges of this mission. in addition to isaacman, the crew includes scott “kidd” poteet, a veteran member of jared’s team, and two spacex employees, sarah gillis and anna menon. on thursday, february 10 from starbase in texas, spacex chief engineer elon musk provided an update on the development of starship, a fully reusable transportation system capable of carrying passengers and cargo to earth orbit, the moon, mars, and beyond. on thursday, february 3 at 1:13 p.m. est, falcon 9 launched 49 starlink satellites to low earth orbit from launch complex 39a (lc 39a) at kennedy space center in florida. falcon 9’s second stage deployed the satellites into their intended orbit, with a perigee of approximately 210 kilometers above earth, and each satellite achieved controlled flight. spacex deploys its satellites into these lower orbits so that in the very rare case any satellite does not pass initial system checkouts it will quickly be deorbited by atmospheric drag. while the low deployment altitude requires more capable satellites at a considerable cost to us, it’s the right thing to do to maintain a sustainable space environment. unfortunately, the satellites deployed on thursday were significantly impacted by a geomagnetic storm on friday. these storms cause the atmosphere to warm and atmospheric density at our low deployment altitudes to increase. in fact, onboard gps suggests the escalation speed and severity of the storm caused atmospheric drag to increase up to 50 percent higher than during previous launches. the starlink team commanded the satellites into a safe mode where they would fly edge on (like a sheet of paper) to minimize drag to effectively “take cover from the storm” and continued to work closely with the space force’s 18th space control squadron and leolabs to provide updates on the satellites based on ground radars. preliminary analysis show the increased drag at the low altitudes prevented the satellites from leaving safe mode to begin orbit raising maneuvers, and up to 40 of the satellites will reenter or already have reentered the earth’s atmosphere. the deorbiting satellites pose zero collision risk with other satellites and by design demise upon atmospheric reentry meaning no orbital debris is created and no satellite parts hit the ground. this unique situation demonstrates the great lengths the starlink team has gone to ensure the system is on the leading edge of on orbit debris mitigation. on tuesday, november 23 at 10:21 p.m. pst, falcon 9 launched nasa’s double asteroid redirection test (dart) mission to an interplanetary transfer orbit from space launch complex 4 east (slc 4e) at vandenberg space force base in california. dart is humanity’s first planetary defense test mission to see if intentionally crashing a spacecraft into an asteroid is an effective way to change its course, should an earth threatening asteroid be discovered in the future. this was spacex’s first inter planetary mission. this was the third flight for this falcon 9’s first stage booster, which previously supported launch of sentinel 6 michael freilich and a starlink mission. on thursday, november 11 at 6:32 p.m. est, 23:32 utc, spacex’s dragon autonomously docked with the international space station. falcon 9 launched the spacecraft to orbit from histsoric launch complex 39a (lc 39a) at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida on wednesday, november 10 at 9:03 p.m. est. on thursday, november 11 at 6:32 p.m. est, 23:32 utc, spacex’s dragon autonomously docked with the international space station. falcon 9 launched the spacecraft to orbit from histsoric launch complex 39a (lc 39a) at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida on wednesday, november 10 at 9:03 p.m. est. after 199 days in space, the longest duration mission for a u.s. spacecraft, dragon and the crew 2 astronauts, shane kimbrough , megan mcarthur , akihiko hoshide , and thomas pesquet , returned to earth, splashing down off the coast of pensacola, florida at 10:33 p.m. est on november 8. dragon and the crew 2 astronauts were quickly recovered by the spacex recovery team. spacex will transport dragon back to cape canaveral, florida for inspections and refurbishment ahead of future human spaceflight missions. this mission marked multiple firsts for spacex and nasa’s commercial crew program, including being the first to fly two international partners, the first crew mission to use a flight proven dragon and falcon 9, and the first u.s. spacecraft to spend 199 consecutive days in orbit. after three days orbiting earth, dragon and the inspiration4 crew   the world’s first civilian mission to orbit   safely splashed down off the coast of florida at 7:06 p.m. edt on saturday, september 18, 2021, completing their first multi day low earth orbit mission. dragon performed a series of departure phasing burns to leave the circular orbit of 575 kilometers and then jettisoned its trunk ahead of its deorbit burn. after re entering the earth’s atmosphere, the spacecraft deployed its two drogue and four main parachutes in preparation for the soft water landing. inspiration4 is commanded by jared isaacman, founder and ceo of shift4 payments and an accomplished pilot and adventurer. joining him are medical officer hayley arceneaux, a physician assistant at st. jude children’s research hospital® and pediatric cancer survivor; mission specialist chris sembroski, an air force veteran and aerospace data engineer; and mission pilot dr. sian proctor, a geoscientist, entrepreneur, and trained pilot. developed by spacex to support nasa’s commercial crew program, dragon helped return human spaceflight capabilities in 2020 and has successfully flown three human spaceflight missions to the international space station (iss) to date. in addition to flying astronauts to space for nasa, dragon can also carry commercial astronauts to earth orbit, the iss or beyond. today, axiom space announced spacex will fly three additional private crew missions aboard dragon to and from the station through 2023. axiom previously announced their first mission to the international space station flying aboard dragon, currently targeted to liftoff no earlier than january 2022. in may 2021, axiom announced that astronaut peggy whitson and champion gt racer john shoffner will serve as commander and pilot on the ax 2 mission . all four crews will receive combined commercial astronaut training from nasa and spacex, with spacex providing training on the falcon 9 launch vehicle and dragon spacecraft, emergency preparedness training, spacesuit and spacecraft ingress and egress exercises, as well as partial and full simulations. the growing partnership between axiom and spacex will enable more opportunities for more humans in space on the road to making humanity multiplanetary. on wednesday, may 5, starship serial number 15 (sn15) successfully completed spacex’s fifth high altitude flight test of a starship prototype from starbase in texas. similar to previous high altitude flight tests of starship , sn15 was powered through ascent by three raptor engines, each shutting down in sequence prior to the vehicle reaching apogee   approximately 10 km in altitude. sn15 performed a propellant transition to the internal header tanks, which hold landing propellant, before reorienting itself for reentry and a controlled aerodynamic descent. the starship prototype descended under active aerodynamic control, accomplished by independent movement of two forward and two aft flaps on the vehicle. all four flaps were actuated by an onboard flight computer to control starship’s attitude during flight and enabled precise landing at the intended location. sn15’s raptor engines reignited as the vehicle performed the landing flip maneuver immediately before touching down for a nominal landing on the pad. these test flights of starship are all about improving our understanding and development of a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo on long duration interplanetary flights, and help humanity return to the moon, and travel to mars and beyond. congratulations to the entire spacex team on sn15’s successful flight and landing! after 167 days in space, the longest duration mission for a u.s. spacecraft since the final skylab mission in 1974, dragon and the crew 1 astronauts, mike hopkins , victor glover , shannon walker , and soichi noguchi , returned to earth on sunday, may 2, 2021. dragon autonomously undocked from the international space station at 8:35 p.m. edt on saturday, may 1. the spacecraft performed a series of departure burns to move away from the orbiting laboratory. before reentry, dragon jettisoned its trunk to reduce weight and mass to help save propellant for the deorbit burn. the spacecraft then re entered the earth’s atmosphere and deployed its two drogue and four main parachutes in preparation for the soft water landing. approximately 6.5 hours after undocking, dragon splashed down off the coast of florida at 2:56 a.m. edt on sunday, may 2, completing the spacecraft’s first long duration operational mission. this was also the first nighttime splashdown of a u.s. spacecraft with crew on board since apollo 8’s return in 1968. upon splashdown, dragon and the crew 1 astronauts were quickly recovered by the spacex recovery team. spacex will transport dragon back to cape canaveral for inspections and refurbishment ahead of future human spaceflight missions. on saturday, april 24 at 5:08 a.m. edt, 9:08 utc, spacex’s dragon autonomously docked with the international space station (iss) after falcon 9 launched the spacecraft to orbit from historic launch complex 39a (lc 39a) at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida on friday, april 23 at 5:49 a.m. edt, 9:49 utc. this is the first human spaceflight mission to fly astronauts on a flight proven falcon 9 and dragon. the falcon 9 first stage supporting this mission previously launched the crew 1 mission in november 2020, and the dragon spacecraft previously flew robert behnken and douglas hurley to and from the international space station during spacex’s demo 2 mission in 2020. as part of the commercial crew program, nasa astronauts shane kimbrough and megan mcarthur , japanese aerospace exploration agency (jaxa) astronaut akihiko hoshide , and european space agency (esa) astronaut thomas pesquet flew aboard the dragon spacecraft on its second operational mission to the space station. this was the first time dragon flew two international partners and also the first time two crew dragons are attached simultaneously to the orbiting laboratory. after an approximate six month stay, dragon and the crew 2 astronauts will depart from the space station no earlier than october 31 for return to earth and splashdown in the atlantic ocean off the coast of florida. only 24 humans have been to the moon, and no one has been back since 1972. today, nasa announced they have selected starship to land the first astronauts on the lunar surface since the apollo program. we are humbled to help nasa usher in a new era of human space exploration. together, nasa and spacex have successfully executed similarly bold and innovative partnerships, including restoring america’s ability to launch astronauts to orbit and return them safely home. we will build upon our shared accomplishments, and leverage years of close technical collaboration to return to the moon. in doing so, we will lay the groundwork for human exploration to mars and beyond. sustaining a human presence on the moon will require the safe and affordable transportation of crew and significant amounts of cargo. spacex’s starship spacecraft and super heavy rocket represent an integrated and fully reusable launch, propellant delivery, rendezvous, and planetary lander system with robust capabilities and safety features uniquely designed to deliver these essential building blocks. flying between lunar orbit and the surface of the moon, starship will carry crew and all of the supplies, equipment, and science payloads needed for extensive surface exploration. building off the safety and reliability of dragon and falcon, starship will feature proven avionics, guidance and navigation systems, autonomous rendezvous, docking and precision landing capabilities, as well as thermal protection, and a spacious cabin with familiar displays and interfaces utilized on dragon . spacex is rapidly advancing starship development, drawing on an extensive history of launch vehicle and engine development programs. since january 2020, spacex has built 10 starship prototypes, with production and fidelity accelerating on each build. spacex has manufactured and tested more than 60 of starship’s raptor engines, accumulating nearly 30,000 seconds of total test time over 567 engine starts, including on multiple starship static fires and flight tests. we have conducted six suborbital flight tests, including two 150 m hops and four high altitude flights. spacex has also built a full size super heavy booster as part of a pathfinder effort, and currently has five vehicles in production. we are honored to be a part of nasa’s artemis program to safely land the first woman and next man on the surface of the moon, as the first of many, many more people to follow. on tuesday, march 30, spacex launched its fourth high altitude flight test of starship from starbase in texas. similar to previous high altitude flight tests, starship serial number 11 (sn11) was powered through ascent by three raptor engines, each shutting down in sequence prior to the vehicle reaching apogee   approximately 10 km in altitude. sn11 performed a propellant transition to the internal header tanks, which hold landing propellant, before reorienting itself for reentry and a controlled aerodynamic descent. shortly after the landing burn started, sn11 experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly. teams will continue to review data and work toward our next flight test. test flights are all about improving our understanding and development of a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo on long duration interplanetary flights, and help humanity return to the moon, and travel to mars and beyond. on wednesday, march 3, starship serial number (sn10) successfully completed spacex’s third high altitude flight test of a starship prototype from our site in cameron county, texas. similar to the high altitude flight tests of starship sn8 and sn9 , sn10 was powered through ascent by three raptor engines, each shutting down in sequence prior to the vehicle reaching apogee   approximately 10 km in altitude. sn10 performed a propellant transition to the internal header tanks, which hold landing propellant, before reorienting itself for reentry and a controlled aerodynamic descent. the starship prototype descended under active aerodynamic control, accomplished by independent movement of two forward and two aft flaps on the vehicle. all four flaps were actuated by an onboard flight computer to control starship’s attitude during flight and enabled a precise landing at the intended location. sn10’s raptor engines reignited as the vehicle performed the landing flip maneuver immediately before successfully touching down on the landing pad! as if the flight test was not exciting enough, sn10 experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly shortly after landing. all in all a great day for the starship teams   these test flights are all about improving our understanding and development of a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo on long duration interplanetary flights, and help humanity return to the moon, and travel to mars and beyond. congratulations to the entire starship and spacex teams on the flight test! in 2018, japanese entrepreneur, yusaku maezawa, announced the world’s first private passenger mission to fly by the moon aboard starship . known as dearmoon, this mission is an important step toward enabling access for people who dream of traveling to space. today, the dearmoon project opened the application process for eight civilians to join yusaku maezawa on the week long starship mission around the moon in 2023. visit the dearmoon website or watch the video above to learn more on how to apply and potentially become a dearmoon crew member! on tuesday, february 2, starship serial number 9 (sn9) completed spacex’s second high altitude flight test of a starship prototype from our site in cameron county, texas. similar to the high altitude flight test of starship serial number 8 (sn8) , sn9 was powered through ascent by three raptor engines, each shutting down in sequence prior to the vehicle reaching apogee   approximately 10 kilometers in altitude. sn9 successfully performed a propellant transition to the internal header tanks, which hold landing propellant, before reorienting itself for reentry and a controlled aerodynamic descent. the starship prototype descended under active aerodynamic control, accomplished by independent movement of two forward and two aft flaps on the vehicle. all four flaps are actuated by an onboard flight computer to control starship’s attitude during flight and enable precise landing at the intended location. during the landing flip maneuver, one of the raptor engines did not relight and caused sn9 to land at high speed and experience a rud. these test flights are all about improving our understanding and development of a fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo on long duration, interplanetary flights and help humanity return to the moon, and travel to mars and beyond. in 2020, spacex returned america’s ability to fly nasa astronauts to and from the international space station for the first time since the space shuttle’s last flight in 2011. in addition to flying astronauts for nasa, dragon was also designed to carry commercial astronauts to earth orbit, the space station, or beyond. today, it was announced spacex is targeting no earlier than the fourth quarter of this year for falcon 9’s launch of inspiration4   the world’s first all commercial astronaut mission to orbit   from historic launch complex 39a at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida. jared isaacman, founder and ceo of shift4 payments, is donating the three seats alongside him aboard dragon to individuals from the general public who will be announced in the weeks ahead. learn more on how to potentially join this historic journey to space by visiting inspiration4.com . the inspiration4 crew will receive commercial astronaut training by spacex on the falcon 9 launch vehicle and dragon spacecraft, orbital mechanics, operating in microgravity, zero gravity, and other forms of stress testing. they will go through emergency preparedness training, spacesuit and spacecraft ingress and egress exercises, as well as partial and full mission simulations. this multi day journey, orbiting earth every 90 minutes along a customized flight path, will be carefully monitored at every step by spacex mission control. upon conclusion of the mission, dragon will reenter earth’s atmosphere for a soft water landing off the coast of florida. on wednesday, december 9, starship serial number 8 (sn8) lifted off from our cameron county launch pad and successfully ascended, transitioned propellant, and performed its landing flip maneuver with precise flap control to reach its landing point. low pressure in the fuel header tank during the landing burn led to high touchdown velocity resulting in a hard (and exciting!) landing. re watch sn8's flight here. thank you to all the locals supporting our efforts in cameron county and beyond. congratulations to the entire starship and spacex teams on today’s test! serial number 9 (sn9) is up next   mars, here we come! on monday, november 16 at 11:01 p.m. est, 04:01 utc on november 17, spacex’s dragon autonomously docked with the international space station (iss) after falcon 9 launched the spacecraft to orbit from historic launch complex 39a (lc 39a) at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida on sunday, november 15, 2020. as part of the commercial crew program, nasa astronauts mike hopkins , victor glover , shannon walker , and jaxa astronaut soichi noguchi flew aboard dragon on its first six month operational mission to the space station. after its approximately six month stay at the orbiting laboratory, dragon and the astronauts will return to earth and splashdown in the atlantic ocean off the coast of florida. following dragon’s second demonstration mission (demo 2), nasa certified spacex for operational crew missions to and from the space station. crew 1 is the first of three scheduled dragon human spaceflights over the course of 2020 and 2021. the return of human spaceflight to the united states with one of the safest, most advanced systems ever built is a turning point for america’s future space exploration, and it lays the groundwork for missions to the moon, mars, and beyond. today, nasa announced it has certified spacex’s falcon 9 and crew dragon human spaceflight system for crew missions to and from the international space station   the first commercial system in history to achieve such designation. not since the certification of the space shuttle nearly 40 years ago has nasa certified a spacecraft, rocket, and ground support systems for regular flights with astronauts. launched atop falcon 9 on may 30, 2020, dragon 's second demonstration flight test to and from the space station restored human spaceflight to the united states for the first time in almost a decade. that flight was the culmination of years of development, testing, and training all throughout safety remained spacex’s top priority. spacex put every component of every system through its paces, including two flight tests to and from the international space station, demonstrations of dragon’s escape system both on the launch pad and in flight, over 700 tests of the spacecraft's superdraco engines, more than 500 joint soft capture docking tests to validate the performance of dragon’s docking system design, about 8,000,000 hours of hardware in the loop software testing, and nearly 100 tests and flights of dragon’s parachutes to ensure a safe landing back on earth in addition to all of the knowledge gained from twenty previous successful cargo resupply missions to the space station and over forty falcon 9 block 5 launches. spacex and nasa are targeting saturday, november 14 at 7:49 p.m. est for the launch of the first crew rotation mission (crew 1) to the international space station as part of the agency’s commercial crew program. the crew 1 mission will launch nasa astronauts michael hopkins , victor glover , and shannon walker , along with japan aerospace exploration agency (jaxa) mission specialist soichi noguchi , from historic launch complex 39a at kennedy space center in florida. human spaceflight is spacex’s core mission, and we take seriously the responsibility that nasa has entrusted in us to safely carry astronauts to and from the international space station. we are humbled to help nasa usher in a new era of space exploration. on saturday, october 24 at 11:31 a.m. edt, 11:31 utc, spacex’s falcon 9 rocket launched 60 starlink satellites to orbit from space launch complex 40 (slc 40) at cape canaveral air force station in florida. falcon 9’s first stage previously supported the gps iii space vehicle 03 mission in june 2020 and a starlink mission in september 2020. following stage separation, spacex landed falcon 9’s first stage on the “just read the instructions” droneship, which was stationed in the atlantic ocean. the starlink satellites deployed approximately 1 hour and 3 minutes after liftoff. if you would like to receive updates on starlink news and service availability in your area, please visit starlink.com . this mission also marked the 100th successful flight of a falcon rocket since falcon 1 first flew to orbit in 2008. spacex believes that fully and rapidly reusable rockets are the pivotal breakthrough needed to dramatically reduce the cost of access to space to enable people to travel to and live on other planets. while most rockets are expendable after launch   akin to throwing away an airplane after a one way trip from los angeles to new york   spacex is working toward a future in which reusable rockets are the norm. of its now 100 successful flights of falcon rockets, spacex has landed a falcon first stage rocket booster 63 times and re flown boosters 45 times. this year, spacex twice accomplished the sixth flight of an orbital rocket booster. and, in the ten years since its demonstration mission, falcon 9 has become the most flown operational rocket in the united states, overtaking expendable rockets that have been launching for decades. the difficulty of precision landing an orbital rocket after it reenters earth’s atmosphere at hypersonic velocity is not to be overlooked   spacex remains the only launch provider in the world capable of accomplishing this task. at 14 stories tall and traveling upwards of 1300 m/s (nearly 1 mi/s), stabilizing falcon 9’s first stage booster for landing is like trying to balance a rubber broomstick on your hand in the middle of a hurricane. while recovery and re flight of an orbital rocket booster may now seem routine, developing falcon such that it would withstand reentry and return for landing was generally accepted as impossible   and spacex learned many lessons on the road to reusability . spacex’s accomplishments with flight proven rockets and spacecraft have allowed us to further advance the fleet’s reliability and reusability, as well as inform the development of starship   spacex’s next generation fully and rapidly reusable super heavy lift transportation system. starship’s capability of full and rapid reuse will lower the cost of spaceflight to help humanity return to the moon, travel to mars, and ultimately become multi planetary. ahead of falcon 9’s upcoming launch of gps iii 4, the united states space force’s space and missile systems center (smc) announced today an agreement with spacex to recover the first stage booster and, for the first time on a national security space launch (nssl) mission, launch previously flown boosters on future gps missions. spacex is proud to leverage its flight proven capabilities toward national security space launch missions. spacex was also recently selected by the space force to carry out critical national security space launch (nssl) missions ordered over the next five years. spacex will build upon our years long collaboration with the united states air force and the national reconnaissance office to utilize the operationally mature falcon fleet, which has achieved nssl certification and completed a combined 95 orbital missions to date for a variety of customers. with falcon 9 and falcon heavy , spacex is capable of performing every type of national security space mission, to every required reference orbit, with significant performance and schedule margin. to meet or exceed the demanding and unique requirements of the nssl program, spacex invested over a billion dollars of its own money into the falcon fleet and the associated ground infrastructure, manufacturing processes, payload integration procedures, and mission assurance processes. this private investment over multiple years reflects spacex’s deep commitment to reliably launching our customers' payloads to orbit. and, as spacex brought competition back to national security space launch, the united states air force saved billions in critical taxpayer funds. spacex is honored to support the united states space force with a solution given the highest possible rating for system capability, schedule readiness, and system risk, using a mix of new and flight proven launch vehicles. we look forward to leveraging this extensive capability to continue delivering the country’s most reliable and affordable launch services for years to come. on tuesday, august 4 at 4:56 p.m. cdt in boca chica, texas, starship serial number 5 (sn5) lifted off from its launch mount and flew to a height of 150 meters before successfully touching down on a near by landing pad. on this flight test, sn5 was powered by a single raptor engine   a reusable methalox full flow staged combustion rocket engine. this test flight was an important step in development of spacex’s fully reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo to earth orbit, the moon, mars and beyond. on saturday, may 30, spacex’s falcon 9 launched crew dragon’s second demonstration (demo 2) mission from launch complex 39a (lc 39a) at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida with nasa astronauts bob behnken and doug hurley aboard the spacecraft. dragon autonomously docked to the international space station on sunday, may 31, 2020. sixty three days later, crew dragon undocked and departed from the orbiting laboratory, before successfully splashing down in the gulf of mexico off the coast of pensacola, florida on sunday, august 2 at 2:48 p.m. edt. this test flight marked the return of human spaceflight to the united states and the first time in history a commercial company successfully took astronauts to orbit and back. the demo 2 mission was also the final major test milestone for spacex’s human spaceflight system to be certified by nasa for operational crew missions to and from the international space station. with the demo 2 mission now complete, spacex and nasa teams are reviewing all the data for certification before nasa astronauts victor glover, mike hopkins, shannon walker, and jaxa astronaut soichi noguchi fly on dragon’s first six month operational mission (crew 1), targeted for late september. on saturday, may 30 at 3:22 p.m. edt, spacex’s falcon 9 launched crew dragon’s second demonstration (demo 2) mission from launch complex 39a (lc 39a) at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida, and the next day crew dragon autonomously docked to the international space station. this test flight with nasa astronauts bob behnken and doug hurley on board the dragon spacecraft returned human spaceflight to the united states. demo 2 is the final major test for spacex’s human spaceflight system to be certified by nasa for operational crew missions to and from the international space station. spacex is returning human spaceflight to the united states with one of the safest, most advanced systems ever built, and nasa’s commercial crew program is a turning point for america’s future in space exploration that lays the groundwork for future missions to the moon, mars, and beyond. spacex is launching starlink to provide high speed, low latency broadband connectivity across the globe, including to locations where internet has traditionally been too expensive, unreliable, or entirely unavailable. we also firmly believe in the importance of a natural night sky for all of us to enjoy, which is why we have been working with leading astronomers around the world to better understand the specifics of their observations and engineering changes we can make to reduce satellite brightness. our goals include: making the satellites generally invisible to the naked eye within a week of launch. we're doing this by changing the way the satellites fly to their operational altitude, so that they fly with the satellite knife edge to the sun. we are working on implementing this as soon as possible for all satellites since it is a software change. minimizing starlink's impact on astronomy by darkening satellites so they do not saturate observatory detectors. we're accomplishing this by adding a deployable visor to the satellite to block sunlight from hitting the brightest parts of the spacecraft. the first unit is flying on the next launch, and by flight 9 in june all future starlink satellites will have sun visors. additionally, information about our satellites' orbits are located on space track.org to facilitate observation scheduling for astronomers. we are interested in feedback on ways to improve the utility and timeliness of this information. to better explain the details of brightness mitigation efforts, we need to explain more about how the starlink satellites work. starlink orbits starlink has three phases of flight: (1) orbit raise, (2) parking orbit (380 km above earth), and (3) on station (550 km above earth). during orbit raise the satellites use their thrusters to raise altitude over the course of a few weeks. some of the satellites go directly to station while others pause in the parking orbit to allow the satellites to precess to a different orbital plane. once satellites are on station they reconfigure so the antennas face earth and the solar array goes vertical so that it can track the sun to maximize power generation. as a result of this maneuver, the satellites become much darker because the solar array visibility from the ground is greatly reduced. currently, about half of the over 400 satellites are on station and the other half are orbit raising or in the parking orbit. satellites spend a small fraction of their lives orbit raising or parking and spend the vast majority of their lives on station. it's important to note that at any given time, only about several hundred satellites will be orbit raising or parking. the rest of the satellites will be in the operational orbit on station. starlink satellite the starlink satellite design was driven by the fact that they fly at a very low altitude compared to other communications satellites. we do this to prioritize space traffic safety and to minimize the latency of the signal between the satellite and the users who are getting internet service from it. because of the low altitude, drag is a major factor in the design. during orbit raise, the satellites must minimize their cross sectional area relative to the 'wind,' otherwise drag will cause them to fall out of orbit. high drag is a double edged sword it means that flying the satellites is tricky, but it also means that any satellites that are experiencing problems will de orbit quickly and safely burn up in the atmosphere. this reduces the amount of orbital debris or 'space junk' in orbit. this low drag and thrusting flight configuration resembles an open book, where the solar array is laid out flat in front of the vehicle. when starlink satellites are orbit raising, they roll to a limited extent about the velocity vector for power generation, always keeping the cross sectional area minimized while keeping the antennas facing earth enough to stay in contact with the ground stations. when the satellites reach their operational orbit of 550 km, drag is still a factor so any inoperable satellite will quickly decay but the attitude control system is able to overcome this drag with the solar array raised above the satellite in a vertical orientation that we call 'shark fin.' this is the orientation in which the satellite spends the majority of its operational life. satellite visibility satellites are visible from the ground at sunrise or sunset. this happens because the satellites are illuminated by the sun but people or telescopes on the ground are in the dark. these conditions only happen for a fraction of starlink's 90 minute orbit. this simple diagram highlights why satellites in orbit raise are so much brighter than the satellites that are on station. during orbit raise, when the solar array is in open book, sunlight can reflect off of both the solar array and the body of the satellite and hit the ground. once on station, only certain parts of the chassis can reflect light to the ground. physics of satellite brightness the apparent magnitude of an object is a measure of the brightness of a star or object observed from earth. it is a reverse logarithmic scale, so higher numbers correspond to dimmer objects. a star of magnitude 3 is approximately 2.5 times brighter than a star of magnitude 4. based on observations that have been taken by us and by members of the astronomical community, current starlink satellites have an average apparent magnitude of 5.5 when on station and brighter during orbit raise. objects up to about magnitude 6.5 7 are visible to the naked eye (naked eye visibility is closer to 4 in most suburbs), and our goal is for starlink satellites to be magnitude 7 or better for almost all phases of their mission. there are two types of reflections off of starlink satellites: diffuse and specular. diffuse reflections occur when light is scattered in many different directions. imagine shining a flashlight at a white wall. specular reflections happen when light is reflected in a particular direction. for example, the glint of sunlight off of a mirror. diffuse reflections are the biggest contributor to observed brightness on the ground, because diffuse reflections go in all directions. you can see diffuse reflections as long as the satellite is visible. this is why starlink satellites can create the 'string of pearls' effect in the night sky. it's a little counter intuitive, but the shiny components of the starlink satellites are a much smaller problem. whether diffuse or specular, having a high reflectance helps the satellites stay cool in space. when sunlight hits a specular surface of the spacecraft and reflects, the vast majority of light reflects in the specular (mirror reflection) direction, which is generally out toward space (not toward earth). occasionally when it does, the glint only lasts for a second or less. in fact, specular surfaces tend to be the dimmest part of the satellite unless you are at just the right geometry. the biggest contributors to starlink being bright are the white diffuse phased array antennas on the bottom of the satellite, the white diffuse parabolic antennas on the sides (not shown below), and the white diffuse back side of the solar array. these surfaces are all white to keep temperatures down so components do not overheat. the key to making starlink darker is to prevent sunlight from illuminating these white surfaces and scattering via reflection toward observers on the ground. while in orbit raise and the parking orbit the solar array dominates due to the much larger surface area. however, once the satellites are at their operational altitude, the antennas dominate because the bright backside of the solar array is shadowed. solutions in work we've taken an experimental and iterative approach to reducing the brightness of the starlink satellites. orbital brightness is an extremely difficult problem to tackle analytically, so we've been hard at work on both ground and on orbit testing. for example, earlier this year we launched darksat, which is an experimental satellite where we darkened the phased array and parabolic antennas designed to tackle on station brightness. this reduced the brightness of the satellite by about 55%, as was verified by differential optical measurements comparing darksat to other nearby starlink satellites. this is nearly enough of a brightness reduction to make the satellite invisible to the naked eye while on station. however, black surfaces in space get hot and reflect some light (including in the ir spectrum), so we are moving forward with a sun visor solution instead. this avoids thermal issues due to black paint, and is expected to be darker than darksat since it will block all light from reaching the white diffuse antennas. early mission (orbit raise and parking orbit) roll maneuver since the visor is intended to help with brightness while on station, it does not shade the back of the solar array, which means that it will not prevent orbit raise and parking orbit brightness. for this, we are working on changing the way the satellite flies up from insertion to parking orbit and to station. we're currently testing rolling the satellite so the vector of the sun is in plane with the satellite body, i.e. so the satellite is knife edge to the sun. this would reduce the light reflected onto earth by reducing the surface area that receives light. this is possible when orbit raising and parking in the precession orbit because we don't have to constrain the antennas to be nadir facing to provide coverage to internet users. however, there are a couple of nuanced reasons why this is tricky to implement. first, rolling the solar array away from the sun reduces the amount of power available to the satellite. second, because the antennas will sometimes be rolled away from the ground, contact time with the satellites will be reduced. third, the star tracker cameras are located on the sides of the chassis (the only place they can go and have adequate field of view). rolling knife edge to the sun can point one star tracker directly at the earth and the other one directly at the sun, which would cause the satellite to have degraded attitude knowledge. there will be a small percentage of instances when the satellites cannot roll all the way to true knife edge to the sun due to one of the aforementioned constraints. this could result in the occasional set of starlink satellites in the orbit raise of flight that are temporarily visible for one part of an orbit. on station brightness satellites spend most of their lives on station, where they will always be in the shark fin configuration during visible passes. we can adjust the solar array positioning in this configuration to reflect light from its largely specular solar cells away from earth and to partially hide it behind the chassis. the main remaining goal is to block the phased arrays and antennae from direct view of the sun. the goal is to cover the white phased array antennas and the parabolic antennas on the sides of the satellite. using our low orbital altitude and flat satellite geometry to our advantage, we designed an rf transparent deployable visor for the satellite that blocks the light from reaching most of the satellite body and all of the diffuse parts of the main body. this visor lays flat on the chassis during launch and deploys during satellite separation from falcon 9. the visor prevents light from reflecting off of the diffuse antennas by blocking the light from reaching the antennas altogether. not only does this approach avoid the thermal impacts from surface darkening the antennas, but it should also have a larger impact on brightness reduction. as previously noted, the first visorsat prototype will launch in may and we will have these black, specular visors on all satellites by june. the parabolic antennas on the sides of the starlink satellite also have visor like coverings that darken them. we have been working with leading astronomical groups in this effort in particular the american astronomical society and the vera c. rubin observatory to better understand the methods and instruments employed by the astronomy community. with aas, we have increased our understanding of the community as a whole through regular calls with a working group of astronomers during which we discuss technical details, provide updates, and work on how we can protect astronomical observations moving forward. a post on some of our sessions is here . one particularly useful presentation from a member of this working group is here . while community understanding is critical to this problem, engineering problems are difficult to solve without specifics. the vera c. rubin observatory was repeatedly flagged as the most difficult case to solve, so we've spent the last few months working very closely with a technical team there to do just that. among other useful thoughts and discussions, the vera rubin team has provided a target brightness reduction that we are using to guide our engineering efforts as we iterate on brightness solutions. these technical and community discussions are paired with our existing efforts to make the satellites easier for astronomers to avoid. starlink trajectories are published through space track.org and celestrak.com , which many astronomers use in timing their observations to avoid satellite streaks. we've also started publishing predictive data prior to launch at the request of astronomers. these allow observatories to schedule around the satellites in the first few hours of deployment (as satellites de tumble and enter the network). vera rubin has been described as the limiting case for starlink, due to its enormous aperture and wide field of view. these two characteristics work in concert to produce the perfect storm for satellite observations. most astronomical systems look at an extremely small section of the sky (less than 1 degree), which makes it exceedingly unlikely that a satellite will cross in front of the imaging system in a given observation. on the other hand, systems with very large fields of view normally aren't extremely sensitive, meaning that, while streaks will occur, they will have a small impact on the overall data collection. this is why we've been working so closely with the team at the rubin observatory. in fact, despite its wide field of view, the vera c. rubin observatory is sensitive enough to detect a sunlit golf ball as far away as the moon. so what can we do to mitigate our impact on these edge cases of wide, fast survey telescopes? minimizing the impact on astronomy the huge collecting area of a larger telescopes like vera c. rubin observatory leads to a sensitivity that will render even the darkest satellites visible.they are so sensitive that it won't be possible to build a satellite that will not produce streaks, in a typical long integration. there is much that can be done to reduce the impact of satellite streaks, and that starts with an understanding of how astronomical sensors work. the astronomical community has done a great job of educating us on their imaging techniques. optical systems use mirrors or lenses to focus light onto an imaging sensor. most optical astronomy instruments use sensors called charge coupled devices (ccds) as their detectors because astronomical targets, such as distant supernovae and galaxies, are generally dim at the limit of what can be detected by a sensor. for these applications, the lower noise level of ccds allows for a higher signal to noise ratio for a given image, making it easier to see very faint features in the universe. however, ccds suffer from a key drawback: when compared to other common sensors, like the cmos sensor in your cell phone. if you point your cell phone at a bright light, you'll see all the pixels saturate and turn white in the region of the bright source. if you look at the same target with an optical system that uses a ccd sensor, you'll notice that this bright spot extends to create vertical stripes on the image. this difference is due to the way each sensor type reads the values for each pixel. while a cmos sensor essentially has an amplifier at each pixel that turns the light collected into a digital value, a ccd sensor has a limited number of amplifiers and moves the collected light (in the form of electrons) across the sensor, to be digitized. this mechanism means that a saturated pixel on a ccd tends to wipe out data from an entire column of pixels. this effect, commonly referred to as 'blooming,' is one example of how a very small but bright source of light can impact an astronomical observation. this principle is the core of our mitigation efforts. while it will not be possible to create satellites that are invisible to the most advanced optical equipment on earth, by reducing the brightness of the satellites, we can make the existing strategies for dealing with similar issues, such as frame stacking, dramatically more effective. future satellites spacex is committed to making future satellite designs as dark as possible. the next generation satellite, designed to take advantage of starship's unique launch capabilities, will be specifically designed to minimize brightness while also increasing the number of consumers that it can serve with high speed internet access. while spacex is the first large constellation manufacturer and operator to address satellite brightness, we won't be the last. as launch costs continue to drop, more constellations will emerge and they too will need to ensure that the optical properties of their satellites don't create problems for observers on the ground. this is why we are working to make this problem easier for everyone to solve in the future. spacex and nasa are targeting may 27 for falcon 9’s launch of crew dragon’s second demonstration mission (demo 2) from historic launch complex 39a at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida as part of nasa’s commercial crew program . nasa astronauts bob behnken and doug hurley will be the first two nasa astronauts to fly onboard the dragon spacecraft as part of the demo 2 mission to and from the international space station, which will return human spaceflight to the united states since the space shuttle was retired in 2011. filled with approximately 4,500 pounds of supplies and payloads, dragon launched aboard a falcon 9 rocket on march 6, 2020 from cape canaveral air force station in florida. the dragon spacecraft that supported the crs 20 mission previously supported the crs 10 mission in february 2017 and the crs 16 mission in december 2018. dragon is the only spacecraft currently flying that's capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to earth. the falcon 9 launch vehicle and crew dragon spacecraft that will support demo 2 are onsite at spacex’s facilities in florida. to mark the return of human spaceflight on american rockets from american soil, nasa has revived their worm logo for demo 2 . in preparation for demo 2, spacex has completed a number of major milestones for nasa’s commercial crew program. in march 2019, spacex completed an end to end test flight of crew dragon without nasa astronauts onboard, making dragon the first american spacecraft to autonomously dock with the international space station and safely return to earth. in january 2020, spacex demonstrated crew dragon's in flight launch escape capability to reliably carry crew to safety in the unlikely event of an emergency on the launch pad or at any point during ascent. spacex has completed over 700 tests of the spacecraft's superdraco engines, which fired together at full throttle can power dragon 0.5 miles away from falcon 9 in 7.5 seconds, accelerating the vehicle more than 400 mph. spacex has completed 27 tests of crew dragon’s enhanced mark 3 parachute design, which will provide a safe landing back on earth for astronauts returning from the space station. these tests include 13 successful single parachute drop tests, 12 successful multi parachute tests, and a successful demonstration of the upgraded parachute system during crew dragon’s in flight abort test . additionally, spacex and nasa have jointly executed a series of mission simulations from launch and docking to departure and landing, an end to end demonstration of pad rescue operations , and a fully integrated test of critical crew flight hardware on the demo 2 crew dragon spacecraft with nasa astronauts bob behnken and doug hurley participating in their demo 2 spacesuits. demo 2 is the final major test for spacex’s human spaceflight system to be certified by nasa for operational crew missions to and from the international space station. once demo 2 is complete, and the spacex and nasa teams have reviewed all the data for certification, nasa astronauts victor glover , mike hopkins , shannon walker and jaxa astronaut soichi noguchi have been assigned to fly on dragon’s first six month operational mission (crew 1) targeted for later this year. spacex is returning human spaceflight to the united states with one of the safest, most advanced systems ever built, and nasa’s commercial crew program is a turning point for america’s future in space exploration that lays the groundwork for future missions to the moon, mars, and beyond. on sunday, january 19, spacex successfully completed an in flight test of crew dragon’s launch escape capabilities from launch complex 39a (lc 39a) at nasa’s kennedy space center in florida. this test, which did not have nasa astronauts onboard the spacecraft, demonstrated crew dragon’s ability to reliably carry crew to safety in the unlikely event of an emergency on ascent. falcon 9 and dragon lifted off at 10:30 a.m. est, or 15:30 utc, with the abort sequence initiating approximately one and a half minutes into flight. crew dragon's eight superdraco engines powered the spacecraft away from falcon 9 at speeds of over 400 mph. following separation, dragon's trunk was released and the spacecraft's parachutes were deployed, first the two drogue parachutes followed by the four upgraded mark iii parachutes. dragon safely splashed down in the atlantic ocean and teams successfully recovered the spacecraft onto spacex's recovery vessel. you can watch a replay of launch above and learn more about the mission here . spacex's starship and super heavy launch vehicle is a fully, rapidly reusable transportation system designed to carry both crew and cargo to earth orbit, the moon, mars, and anywhere else in the solar system. on saturday, september 28 at our launch facility in cameron county, texas, spacex chief engineer elon musk provided an update on the design and development of starship. spacex © 2025 privacy policy suppliers

the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 by henry c. dethloff the first mission of the space transport system (sts 1) or space shuttle, flew on april 12, 1981, ending a long hiatus in american space flight. the last apollo lunar mission flew in december 1972, and the joint american russian apollo soyuz earth orbital mission closed in july 1975. the national aeronautics and space administration (nasa) intended that the shuttle make that permanent link between earth and space, and that it should become part of "a total transportation system" including "vehicles, ground facilities, a communications net, trained crews, established freight rates and flight schedules and the prospect of numerous important and exciting tasks to be done." it was to be "one element in a grand design that included a space station, unmanned planetary missions, and a manned flight to mars."1 awarded the collier trophy (in a tradition that began in 1911), the flight of sts 1 represented the greatest achievement in aviation for 1981. nasa, rockwell international, martin marietta, thiokol, and the entire government/industrial team responsible for the design, construction, and flight of the spacecraft, as well as the crew of the shuttle, john young, robert crippen, joe engle, and richard truly, were all recipients of that award. since 1962, nasa aerospace projects, including mercury, gemini, apollo, landsat, and skylab, had received ten of the twenty collier awards. now, the eleventh in twenty years went to a nasa team that had designed and flown something remarkably different from those previous craft. for the space shuttle was a true aerospace craft, a reusable vehicle that could take off from the earth, enter and operate in space, and return to an earth landing. n. wayne hale, a missions flight director for the shuttle, likened it to a battleship, which while it may have only a few aboard, nevertheless had a crew of thousands stationed around the world and linked by mission control. owen morris, the engineering and systems integration division head for the shuttle program office, described the shuttle as a particularly complex, integrated machine and an enormous engineering challenge.2 although it flew its maiden voyage only in 1981, nasa's shuttle program began many years earlier and predated apollo. in the late 1950s, as human space flight began to be seriously considered and planned, most scientists and engineers projected that if space flight became a reality it would build upon logical building blocks. first, a human would be lofted into space as a passenger in a capsule (project mercury). second, the passengers would acquire some control over the space vehicle (project gemini). third, a reusable space vehicle would be developed that would take humans into earth orbit and return them. next, a permanent space station would be constructed in a near earth orbit through the utilization of the reusable space vehicle. finally, planetary and lunar flights would be launched from the space station using relatively low thrust and reusable (and thus lower cost) space vehicles. the perception of what became the shuttle as that reusable space vehicle associated with an orbiting space station held fast well into the vehicle's developmental stages. 277 278 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 one of the known quantities in space flight was that the velocity required for a vehicle to escape earth's gravitational pull was only 1.41 times the velocity required to achieve earth orbit. the great costs associated with space flight included the cost of fuel used to achieve orbit, the cost of the expendable boosters and fuel tanks used to drive a space vehicle into orbit or into space, and the effective loss of the inhabited capsule or vehicle which, while it returned, could not be reused. space quickly came to be an expensive business, and as it developed, the shuttle, more so than previous projects, was cost driven, both in its incentives and in its construction. but because the nation's mission in space came to be to put an american on the moon within the decade of the sixties, nasa's apollo lunar program preempted both the space station and the shuttle. and, when the shuttle appeared without a space station to build and service, it appeared emasculated and detached from its intended purpose to some extent an aerospace plane without a space mission. when did the space shuttle begin? at what point was it created? it could have been in march 1966, when a nasa planning team developed a statement of work for a "reusable ground launch vehicle concept and development planning study." or it could have been at an apollo applications conference held at the manned spacecraft center (later the lyndon b. johnson space center) in houston on october 27, 1966, when leaders of the marshall space flight center and the manned spacecraft center agreed to pursue independent studies of a shuttle system along the lines of a march 1966 statement of work. or most certainly a point of inception would be january 23, 1969, when george e. mueller, nasa's associate administrator for manned space flight, approved contract negotiations for initial shuttle design work .3 or it could have been even much earlier. under the authority of house resolution 496, approved march 5, 1958, the house committee on science and astronautics, chaired by senator overton brooks, democrat of louisiana, convened hearings designed to provide direction and guidance for the creation of a new federal agency that would head america's space program. during those hearings many "experts" described the development of space stations and "controlled space flight" as the prerequisites for expeditions to the moon and beyond. brigadier general a. h. boushey, air force director of advanced technology listed the development of spacecraft, piloted by humans, as "the most important" of the goals which must receive attention before there could be true exploration of space: boushey believed that by the end of the decade of the 1960s, a large space station could be assembled by piloted "space tugs," that would remain in orbit throughout their useful life and operate only outside the atmosphere. "in addition to the 'tugs,' manned from engineering science to big science 279 resupply and maintenance spacecraft will shuttle from the earth's equator to the orbiting satellites." subsequently, a piloted spacecraft that would refuel at the space station in earth orbit, "will land on the moon."5 t. f. morrow, vice president of chrysler corporation, thought that space stations or platforms might come in later decades, but that by 1969 one could expect "space trips encircling the earth and the moon." dr. walter r. dornberger, rocket expert for bell aircraft, expected to see "manned and automatic space astronomical observatories; manned space laboratories; manned and automatic filling, storage, supply and assembly space facilities; manned space maintenance and supply and rescue ships all climaxed by the first manned flight to the moon."6 roy k. knutson, chairman, corporate space committee for north american aviation, offered a much more exact definition for a "winged" space vehicle. while a piloted capsule (such as mercury) would take a person into space and provide important physiological data, "ultimately ... consideration must be given to the problem of reentering the earth's atmosphere from orbit in a winged vehicle capable of landing at a designated spot under control of a pilot."7 he viewed north american aviation's x 15 (then under development) as a forerunner of an aerospace craft, and believed solving the reentry problem would be the most crucial engineering task associated with developing a reusable shuttle. he offered, in 1958, a remarkably clear description of what would one day become the shuttle: if not a point of inception, there was at least in 1958 a sense of direction for the development of a reusable aerospace craft. even earlier, before the launch of the soviet sputnik satellite, scientists and engineers seriously discussed the construction and operation of space craft. krafft a. eriche, for example, presented "calculations on a manned nuclear propelled space vehicle" to the american rocket society in september 1957. in january 1957, naca engineers on the staff of the ames aeronautical laboratory at moffett field, california, filed a secret report on their "preliminary investigation of a new research airplane for exploring the problems of efficient hypersonic flight." it was to be an aircraft considerably exceeding the performance levels of the x 15 with "a rocket boost ... to mach numbers of the order of 10 and altitudes of the order of 140,000 feet."9 280 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 with the insight and direction provided by congress, the experiences of national advisory committee for aeronautics (naca), and the american (and canadian) aircraft industry, nasa set about after its inception in 1958 to provide the united states leadership in space exploration, space science, and space technology.10 but american successes in space seemed painfully gained, and slowly realized. not only had the soviet union launched the first satellite into orbit on october 4, 1957, but in 1959 soviet rocket scientists launched three successful interplanetary craft into space. the second, luna ii impacted on the moon in september; luna iii flew behind the moon in october 1959. on april 12, 1961, major yuri gagarin became the first person to "leave this planet, enter the void of space, and return." by 1961, with the encouragement of the democratic party campaign for the presidency, americans had begun agonizing over the "missile gap." after the elections and the inauguration, on may 25, 1961, president john f. kennedy and congress set a new course for nasa, preempting existing developmental programs and schedules. the united states, before the decade is out, should land "a man on the moon" and return him safely to earth.11 the apollo program became the leading effort. an orbital space station and earth to orbit spacecraft, while they might contribute to a continuing presence in space and provide a platform for further lunar or planetary exploration, did not contribute to the short term goal of an american lunar landing within the decade. nasa readjusted its schedules and priorities to accommodate apollo. the space station and the reusable aerospace craft remained viable, but future, options. marshall space flight center (msfc), in particular, continued to study the reusable vehicle concept and as early as january 1963, developed a statement of work for a fully reusable rocket powered vehicle that could carry civilian passengers, and a sizable payload. marshall awarded independent contracts to lockheed aircraft and north american aviation for design and development studies. but the nasa focus continued to be on mercury, gemini, and apollo. by the end of 1963, the mercury program ended. the last gemini mission flew on november 11, 1966. nasa scheduled the first apollo flight for december 5, 1965. an apollo with a saturn booster, which was to send apollo on its lunar voyages, flew an unpiloted test on february 26, 1966. 12 it appeared likely through most of 1966 that the apollo saturn lunar program was on schedule. should nasa complete its mission to land a man on the moon within the decade, what would happen next? nasa began to address that issue by establishing an apollo applications office, in 1966, that would devise programs to utilize apollo technology in non lunar programs. in october 1966, the annual meeting of the american institute of aeronautics and astronautics focused on the question, "after apollo, what next?" and, in 1966, just as the apollo saturn program seemed on the verge of success, congress and the american public began to divert attention and public funds from space and nasa to the more urgent business of a growing war in vietnam. the war, and money, began, even in the midst of apollo, to turn nasa's attention to the "more practical" approach to space.13 more practical meant more efficient, less costly, more economic. discussion of an orbital space platform or station, and a reusable earth to orbit supply vehicle revived. from engineering science to big science 281 thus, in march 1966, a special nasa planning team developed a statement of work for a reusable ground launch vehicle, and in october marshall space flight center and the manned spacecraft center agreed to pursue independent study and research on such a spacecraft. nasa budgets, however, were becoming increasingly constrained, and at a january conference at nasa headquarters administrators reluctantly agreed that there should be no new launch vehicle development in order to reduce the budget problems. the year, 1967, passed without any real progress in the development of a reusable spacecraft, but financial pressures became greater rather than less. in january 1968, george mueller rekindled sentiments for work on a reusable spacecraft as potentially a cost saving measure: nevertheless, nasa put a decision for the development of a reusable vehicle on hold. meanwhile, in collaborative sessions with the air force, which was independently studying orbiting laboratories and aerospace planes, nasa and air force engineers agreed on the need to develop a logistics space vehicle with a payload range of 5,000 to 50,000 pounds for use with a space station. marshall and manned spacecraft administrators again conferred in october, and agreed to issue a request to nasa headquarters for a joint phase a (concept definition) study for a logistics space vehicle. headquarters tentatively agreed to award a study contract, but withheld approval pending the results of the apollo 8 flight.15 apollo 8 was the first apollo flight carrying "human cargo" powered by the saturn rocket. its original flight plan was to go into earth orbit, but again msfc and msc combined to convince leaders at nasa headquarters that apollo 8 should be a circumlunar flight. although perceived to be a "high risk" effort, apollo 8, launched on december 28, 1968, put astronauts frank borman, james a. lovell, jr. and william a. anders into ten orbits about the moon, and returned them safely to earth. that flight provided greater assurance of the probability of completing a lunar landing within the decade, and accelerated the need to commit to a post apollo program. on january 23, 1969, george mueller approved contract negotiations for design work on what would become the space shuttle.16 touchdown by apollo 11 on the moon's surface in july 1969 brought work on the shuttle into sharper focus. the question, "after apollo, what next?" needed to be answered soon. president richard m. nixon appointed a space task group to study the problem and offer options. internal nasa studies complemented the work of the task group. on january 29, nasa awarded phase a study contracts for elements of an "integral launch and reentry vehicle" (ilrv). lockheed missile & space company studied clustered or modular reusable flyback stages. general dynamics/convair examined expendable fuel tanks and solid propulsion stages. both contracts were administered by marshall. the manned spacecraft center in houston directed a study by north american rockwell for expendable tank configurations coupled with a reusable spacecraft. mcdonnell douglas, 282 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 working under langley research center supervision, examined tank, booster, and spacecraft ("triamese") configurations. martin marietta conducted an independent design study also submitted to nasa.17 concurrently, a joint dod/nasa study began on space transportation which would also go to the president's space task group. in october 1969, congressman olin e. teague, chairman of the house committee on science and astronautic's subcommittee for nasa oversight, asked the director of each nasa center involved directly in the manned space flight program to review various "levels of effort" as they might affect future programs when measured against the space task group recommendations. he requested an evaluation of the space task group's preliminary recommendations that nasa focus on a reusable space craft and a permanent space station. and he requested personal letters from dale d. myers (associate administrator for manned space flight), robert r. gilruth (director of the manned spacecraft center), kurt h. debus (director of kennedy space center), eberhard rees (director of marshall space flight center), and wernher von braun (deputy associate administrator), "setting forth their views on the importance of moving forward with the manned space flight program at this time."18 dale myers described the changing focus of the mission in space from the single purpose pursued in the apollo program, to a broader effort to use space technology for the benefit of man. "in earth orbit, a space station supplied by the reusable shuttle will provide additional economic gains and practical benefits." they would facilitate a considerable expansion in space activities and increase the number of visitors into space.19 robert r. gilruth, director of the manned spacecraft center, responded that he firmly believed "that the reusable space shuttle and the large space station are vital elements which must be developed." he described the "earth to orbit shuttle" as "the keystone to our post apollo activities." kurt debus described the broad technology advances required for the development of a shuttle and space station, and noted that one cannot always identify the total utility of an innovation. throughout history, he noted, innovations have been made without identifying all the uses and applications he named the wheel, the telephone, the car, and the airplane as good examples. he advised proceeding now with the development of a fully reusable space shuttle, and the initiation of phase b studies. eberhard rees wrote that the answer to the high costs of space transportation is to develop a system "which operates much like the cargo and passenger airlines, namely a space shuttle system."20 wernher von braun reviewed the accomplishments of the past decade, noting that the space program thus far "brought renewed strength in national leadership, in security, in education, and in science and technology, and in the will of america to succeed." from engineering science to big science 283 284 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 robert f. thompson, who became the manned spacecraft center's space shuttle program director in april 1970, explained that the emphasis in the initial phase a and dod studies was to develop a fully reusable system, which he perceived at the time as the most cost effective configuration, because of anticipated lower operating costs. however, as early as may 1969, the costs of developing fully reusable systems became ominous. by the end of the year nasa headquarters shifted the phase a studies to an emphasis on a combination of expendable and recoverable boosters coupled with reusable spacecraft. the phase a reports were received in november 1969, and the dod/nasa joint studies were completed in december 1970. both the nasa internal studies and the dod/nasa study continued to support a fully reusable spacecraft.22 in may 1970, nasa awarded phase b contracts to a north american rockwell and general dynamics team and to a mcdonnell douglas and martin marietta team for definition studies of a fully reusable shuttle. but in june, contracts were awarded to the grumman aerospace and boeing partners for studies of various expendable and reusable booster and fuel tank designs, to lockheed to examine an expendable fuel tank for the orbiter, and to chrysler for design study of a single stage reusable orbiter. there were other contracts to study various assemblies through the remainder of 1970.23 the year ended without a decision as to the design of the shuttle, but with a number of interesting options. but the estimated costs of developing a fully reusable shuttle were rising, and costs soon became the decisive element, not only in the shuttle design, but in determining future nasa programs. the development of a fully reusable shuttle was conservatively estimated to "require more than a doubling of nasa's budget, unrealistic at any time and particularly so in the light of increasing military expenditures in southeast asia." during congressional hearings on the fy 1971 nasa budget, nasa comptroller bill lilly responded to questioning that if choices had to be made, the shuttle had to precede the space station because, "if they could not be developed concurrently, the shuttle in extended sortie, could act as a surrogate station and the long term future of space flight lay in reducing the cost of all operations, but foremost in the cost of delivery to low earth orbit."24 as will be seen, funding was tenuous throughout the development program. the decision on a fully, or even a partially, reusable shuttle apparatus was still pending. finally, on april 1, 1971, nasa directed that the phase b contracts shift the emphasis from "fully reusable" to consider an "orbiter" with external expendable hydrogen tanks. james c. fletcher, who had replaced nasa administrator thomas o. paine in april, believed that whatever the technical merits of a fully reusable space vehicle might be, the $10.5 billion price tag currently assigned shuttle development simply would "not fly" with congress. in june 1971, max faget, who headed msc's advanced missions program office, presented an alternate configuration, that is, a two stage shuttle with a drop tank orbiter. administrator fletcher accepted the configuration as nasa's choice, and on june 16, 1971, sent congress a letter of decision. studies of the new configuration with a fully reusable orbiter, and expendable or reusable external booster rockets and tanks, subsequently lowered estimated r&d costs to about $5 billion, or one half that of the fully reusable vehicle. 25 the new partially reusable configuration involved the lowest development costs, but also enhanced the aerodynamics of the shuttle's orbiter, and safety. an internal tank from engineering science to big science 285 design required heavy insulation of the spacecraft, much heavier launch weights, and flight difficulties resulting from tank torsion and "slosh." the very high pressure required in the fuel tanks also created higher risks and engineering and maintenance problems. 26 refinement of the proposed new configuration took yet another two years. for the time, the solution seemed the best in terms of costs and technical development. despite nasa's june 1971 commitment to a reusable orbiter launched by an expendable or partially reusable propulsion system, there was no specific congressional funding for shuttle r&d. shuttle funding came from general nasa spaceflight operations programs through fy 1973. moreover, shuttle program expenditures had risen from $12.5 million in 1970 to $78.5 million in 1971 .27 clearly, formal approval had to be secured or study on the shuttle project had to be terminated. in june 1971, nasa's associate administrator for manned space flight, dale d. myers, who had managed north american rockwell's shuttle development work before he replaced george mueller at nasa headquarters, assigned marshall responsibility for development of the shuttle main engine and boosters, and the manned spacecraft center responsibility for developing the orbiter. throughout 1971 and into 1972, nasa extended the phase b contracts, and awarded new ones to examine variously the use of existing titan and saturn rockets as shuttle launch vehicles, the feasibility of using liquid or solid propulsion boosters, and methods of recovering boosters and external tanks. in january 1972, marshall space flight center awarded contracts to aerojet general, lockheed propulsion company, thiokol chemical, and united technology center to study the possibilities of using 286 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 existing 120 inch and 156 inch solid rocket motors as part of the shuttle booster system. 28 preliminary and final reports confirmed the lower costs of the new shuttle configuration. on january 5, 1972, administrator fletcher and deputy administrator george low met with president nixon and his staff assistant, john erlichman, for a review of the shuttle program. nixon approved the revised and less costly shuttle program, and wanted to stress both the civilian and the international aspects of shuttle development and future missions.29 nixon's support for the shuttle, however, became hoisted on the petard of the growing difficulties in vietnam, the proposed air force supersonic transport plane (sst) cancelled by congress the previous year, and party politics. on january 7, senator edmund muskie (d me), a democratic candidate for the presidency, told florida audiences while campaigning there that the space shuttle was an extravagance and should be shelved. reflecting the sentiments of many americans, the greater priorities of the nation, he said, were "hungry children, inadequate housing, decaying cities, and insecure old age." he accused president nixon of practicing "pork barrel politics" by supporting the $5.5 billion space program. 30 senator walter mondale (d mn), another aspirant for president, called the space shuttle program "ridiculous" on a nationally televised debate. "at the present and known levels of space activity, to produce the space shuttle would be like buying a fleet of goldplated cadillacs to go out and repair the tire of a pinto.... it is not a new exploration weapon. it is simply a truck a very expensive truck that is not worth the money."31 senator william proxmire (d wi), who successfully led the fight against the sst in 1971, called nixon's decision to go ahead with what he estimated to be the "$15.5" billion shuttle project, "an outrageous distortion of budgetary priorities." the president, proxmire said, had chosen the space shuttle over schools, public health, housing, mass transit, open space, environmental needs and other vital programs.32 the space program also had powerful advocates in congress, including texas congressman olin e. teague (and the entire texas delegation), mississippi senator john c. stennis, and senator stuart symington of missouri, among others. nevertheless, the administrative decision to proceed with shuttle development rested upon congressional approval and budgets. the future of the space shuttle seemed particularly tenuous in 1972 as congress began the budget debates near the end of january. meanwhile, nasa increased its allocation for shuttle spending from $78 million in 1971 to $100 million for 1972 from its internal operations funds. in march 1972, myers assigned the manned spacecraft center in houston "lead center" authority for overall space shuttle program development management and control. robert f. thompson, a member of the original space task group at langley research center (which became the nucleus of the manned spacecraft center in houston, texas) continued as manager for the nasa wide shuttle program office. thompson previously headed the manned spacecraft center's apollo applications program office, concerned with postapollo planning.33 during 1971 and 1972, the manned spacecraft center and marshall space flight center began to fold personnel from apollo offices into the shuttle program. under the duress of budget cutbacks, and tenure, and with the successful close of the apollo program, many nasa administrators and engineers began to leave nasa. wernher von braun relinquished from engineering science to big science 287 the post of director of marshall space flight center to eberhard rees in 1970. robert gilruth stepped down as director of the manned spacecraft center in january 1972. chris kraft, formerly head of apollo flight operations, replaced him.34 at the very height of apollo successes, nasa seemed to be imploding, while at the same time it redirected personnel and funds into the shuttle program. there were concurrent reductions in force and organizational realignments among nasa's aerospace contractors. although nasa had some 14 years of space flight experience behind it by 1972, the shuttle was something very new and very different from what had gone before. as aaron cohen, manager of the orbiter project office in houston explained, the "orbiter, although similar to apollo in that it goes into space, is very different." the shuttle orbiter (which is usually identified in the public mind as the shuttle) is not simply a spacecraft, but a launch vehicle, a spacecraft, and an airplane combined. the transition from apollo to shuttle, cohen said, represented a transition of technology spanning ten years. there were major technological advances over apollo in terms of materials, electronics, propulsion, and software. the launch configuration of the space shuttle was also different than had ever flown before. with apollo the thrust was through the center of gravity, but with the shuttle the thrust was through the orbiter with an offset external tank. that configuration raised enormous problems with the structural dynamics of the assembly. in addition, whereas apollo, gemini, and mercury launched from series burns, the shuttle utilized a parallel engine burn.35 most significantly, perhaps, the shuttle engines, unlike the saturn or titan engines, were "throttlable," having a controlled engine burn. cohen stressed that certain technical elements of the shuttle were so advanced they were outside the existing state of the art." the controlled burn and the high pressures and temperatures at which the engines operated were an engineering challenge. even to test the apparatus required innovative testing equipment and procedures. the thermal protection system involved the development of a heat resistant tile that had never previously existed. each individual tile fitted on the orbiter nose and underbody had to be individually designed and tested.36 one of the most highly sophisticated and advanced systems was the avionics (guidance, navigation, and control) system which fused electronics with aviation (hence avionics) and made the guidance and control systems responsive and complementary to human direction. "the avionics system synchronized four centralized computers and had a single computer independent of the other four." the fifth computer was on standby to step in should there be a software problem in one of the other computers. the four synchronized computers, the "heart and brains" of the shuttle, "communicated with each other 440 times per second." one computer was the lead computer, the other three "voted" on the input and output of each other. "should the three other computers disagree with the lead computer, it was voted out of the system." air data, microwave sensors, gyros, accelerometers, star trackers, and inputs from ground based laboratories all fed into the avionics system.37 the shuttle avionics system represented revolutionary advances in electronics, computer technology, and guidance and control in the few short years since apollo. similarly, apollo communications systems (using a unified s band) were inadequate to support shuttle missions. shuttle avionics systems were so advanced that special laboratories were required to design and develop them. nasa constructed a $630 million shuttle avionics integration laboratory (sail) at johnson space center for the job. a special shuttle mission simulator (sms) trained crews to use the shuttle and fly missions in what is now popularly 288 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 termed a "virtual reality" setting. astronauts returning from shuttle missions reported that the simulations were so accurate they felt they had flown the mission many times.38 despite the advanced technologies used by the shuttle as compared to apollo, cohen believed that a permanent presence in space, that is the establishment of a space station, would require yet again major advances in new technologies. new technologies were expensive. research and development costs (r&d) grew rapidly. inflation, which peaked at almost 13 percent in 1973, diminished appropriated funds and budgets proportionately. nasa and other government agencies were particularly affected by inflation because appropriations were approved in a previous year at fixed dollar levels. nasa found itself spending dollars that bought much less than anticipated. congressional appropriations for nasa r&d declined by almost $450 million (15 percent) in 1971, and were reduced again in 1972 by another $40 million. r&d appropriations improved by about $80 million in 1973, but collapsed by over $400 million in 1974. during the most critical years of shuttle development, from 1971 through 1977, r&d appropriations remained remarkably stable. but the value of the dollars appropriated declined by about 50 percent in those five years. budget stresses caused "slippage" and delays in development and production, and those in turn, raised the final costs of developing the shuttle. table 1, below, provides an overview of total nasa r&d funding and designated shuttle funding during the developmental stage of the shuttle.39 table i nasa appropriations, 1969 1978 (in thousands of dollars) b for a space station only. c for shuttle and station; $6 million requested for station definition. [source: nasa pocket statistics (january 1994), and for shuttle funding, 1969 1977, see linda neuman ezell, ed., nasa historical data book, 3:69.] from engineering science to big science 289 that funding should be viewed in light of nasa's overall budget which, based on the value of 1992 dollars, dropped sharply from the fy 1965 peak in excess of $22 billion, to a 1974 1979 average of only $9 billion, as adjusted for inflation using 1994 constant dollars. although shuttle specific funding by congress did not begin until 1974, in 1972 and 1973 nasa began to move from the planning and study stage of shuttle development to the design and production stage. one of the great achievements of shuttle development had to do with the production (and business) management of complex disparate systems and integrating those systems or machines into one wholly integrated greater machine. there were many (in fact all) of the nasa centers involved in the creation of the space shuttle. there were far more, literally hundreds, of independent private manufacturers involved in its development. nasa, in effect, was the management team assembled for the production of a single machine by hundreds of diverse private manufacturers. nasa did not build the shuttle, private industry did. thus, the space shuttle continued the peacetime mobilization of american science, engineering, and industry, begun at the inception of nasa and america's entry into the space age albeit, perhaps, at a lower level. the general nasa management structure was, of course, inherited from the apollo and earlier programs, but there were important refinements. in 1971, nasa headquarters assigned marshall space flight center responsibility for developing the booster stages and the shuttle main engines. marshall, of course, had basic propulsion (engine) responsibilities from the beginning. engine testing was assigned to stennis space center, which had begun as marshall's testing laboratory for the apollo saturn engines. the manned spacecraft center had responsibility for developing the orbiter, or piloted vehicle. such had been houston's basic responsibility since its establishment in 1961. kennedy space center, formerly the cape canaveral launch operations directorate under marshall, had responsibility for launch and recovery of shuttle flights as it had throughout the program. the technical, developmental work on the shuttle at all the nasa centers was coordinated through the shuttle program office located at msc in houston. (under the apollo program, many collaborative management decisions were reached informally between the manned spacecraft center and marshall, or were coordinated or passed through the manned space flight office in washington.) the shuttle program office, in turn, reported to the office of manned space flight at nasa headquarters in washington.40 the command and control management structure resembled the apollo management systems, but there were some important differences. production management was more decentralized than before, but control (integration) was more centralized. the shuttle program did rely (even more heavily) on apollo type integration panels which coordinated design and construction projects so that the pieces literally fit together and worked together. integration was the critical element in shuttle production which, as owen morris noted, was a so much more complex machine than apollo. the integration panels reported to the systems integration office in the shuttle program office at the manned spacecraft center and the systems integration office reported to a policy review control board chaired by nasa headquarters.41 shuttle management became a "state of the art" system for very large scale industrial production. there were, of course, important precedents, such as the construction of the panama canal, a battleship, hypersonic aircraft, and apollo. none of those systems, however, 290 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 involved the complexity of machinery, electronics, computers, and materials as entered into shuttle construction. within the three basic management levels for shuttle development technical engineering and management decisions flowed from the bottom up. the "bottom" consisted of the level iii project offices, such as the orbiter office at the manned spacecraft center and the booster office at marshall space flight center. the level iii offices managed the production contracts. level iii offices maintained a resident office (or engineer) at the primary contractors production site, and often co located a manager with the appropriate level ii division. the level ii office was the shuttle program office. it had responsibility for systems engineering and integration, configuration, and overall design and development, or as dale myers stated: "program management responsibility for program control, overall systems engineering and system integration, and overall responsibility and authority for definition of those elements of the total system which interact with other elements." the level ii office established "lead center" authority for engineering and development management. headquarters, or level i, in turn had overall program responsibility and primary responsibility for the assignment of duties, basic performance requirements, the allocation of funds to the centers, and control of major milestones.42 the management structure created a very decentralized, independent production system very compatible, if not necessary, to the very diverse and autonomous private entities that made up the manufacturing or production base of the nasa program. one of the great achievements of the space program, contrary to the tendency in large scale bureaucratic enterprises, was to harness the basic strengths of american industry through decentralized management and production. although it was not designated "level iv," the real production base of the shuttle program was private industry. the basic management tool was the nasa contract, and effectively, competition for the contract. it was the contract (and the primary contractor's subcontracts) that mobilized american industry in support of the space program. the preliminary study, design, and feasibility contracts (phases a & b), mentioned earlier, with in house study and tests produced the technical parameters for issuing an rfp or request for proposal. nasa began issuing rfp's for shuttle procurement in the spring of 1971. aerojet liquid rocket company, pratt & whitney, and rocketdyne were invited to submit proposals for the development of the shuttle main engines. soon after, the manned spacecraft center issued an rfp for a shuttle thermal protection system, to protect the orbiter and its occupants during the critical reentry phase. in july 1971, msfc selected rocketdyne as the primary contractor for the production of thirty five shuttle main engines. pratt & whitney challenged the rocketdyne award and during a gao (general accounting office) review, rocketdyne was given an interim contract. in march 1972, msc issued an rfp for the development of containerized shuttle payload systems, and nasa issued an rfp for the development of the shuttle, with the design due in may.43 north american rockwell (later rockwell international), mcdonnell douglas, grumman, and lockheed submitted proposals for the shuttle. nasa approved an interim letter contract with rockwell in august 1972, and issued a final contract on april 16, 1973. rockwell, in turn, subcontracted major components of the shuttle orbiter to other aerospace firms. fairchild republic division of fairchild industries constructed the vertical tail unit; grumman, the delta wings; general dynamics' convair aerospace division subcontracted for the mid fuselage section, and mcdonnell douglas had responsibility for from engineering science to big science 291 292 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 the orbital maneuvering system.44 the contractor and subcontractors, in turn, had subcontracts and suppliers from the very broad gamut of american industry. electronics, ceramics, metal fabrications, plastics, and chemicals were all heavy contributors to the shuttle. the shuttle was to be a composite creation of american industry, technology, and labor. the shuttle grew and changed even as it came into being. new problems, new concerns, and new technologies altered the configuration and the engineering as the shuttle took shape. each new alteration, in turn, often affected the design, performance, and configuration of other systems. the shuttle offers a classic study of "systems engineering." for example, the decision to utilize a "returnable" external fuel tank rather than build the tank as part of a fully integrated reusable vehicle, did not solve the fuel tank problem. similarly, although nasa opted for a fully reusable orbiter, the decision as to how to build or equip the orbiter to resist the extreme reentry temperatures came later. and while the major function of the shuttle was to carry "payloads" into space, the design of the payload bay continued to change. changing payloads altered flight characteristics and changed flight plans. building an aerospace craft unlike anything built before, and one that could never be "test" flown in an unmanned version (unlike apollo), placed engineering and design work on the creative edge. from engineering science to big science 293 robert f. thompson, the space shuttle program manager from 1970 through 1981, credits "the decision to abandon the 'fully reusable' ground rule and employ expendable tankage for the orbiter main rocket engines propellant was perhaps the single most important configuration decision made in the shuttle program." and it occurred late in the definition stage of shuttle development. through most of 1972, nasa intended to launch the shuttle into orbit with two solid rocket boosters fueled by an external propellant tank, which package would then be deorbited using smaller solid rocket motors, retrieved, and reused. on june 5, 1972, howard w. (bill) tindall, john mayer's deputy and data coordination chief for apollo mission planning, flagged a critical problem in returning the fuel tank from orbit. "it's becoming increasingly evident that a probable major problem area and operations cost driver will be the ho tank separation and retrofire." it appeared, he said, that a very expensive, complex, and expendable attitude control system would be required for the tank to return it from orbit. the problem, he suggested, should be given high priority.45 it was. the problem was directed to a team from the advanced mission design branch of the mission planning and analysis division in the office of the director of flight operations at the manned spacecraft center. the team reported in august that the fuel tank could be "staged" (dropped) prior to orbit. that would solve the expensive and difficult tank reentry problem. the idea was rejected, however, because for the orbiter to achieve orbit, it would need to do so with its own engines, and that would require additional internal liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen fuel tanks. that would mean a heavier lifting body, higher risks, and redesign of the entire shuttle configuration. the advanced mission design branch restudied the problem and discovered that the existing orbital maneuvering system could accelerate the orbiter into orbital velocity after separation of the external tank.46 thompson rejected the idea because the orbital maneuvering system would require more fuel and larger tanks. this was september. in december, new studies and a "resizing exercise," revealed that orbital maneuvers could be accomplished on less fuel than originally planned meaning that additional fuel would be available for the use of the orbital maneuvering system to achieve orbital velocity. the advanced mission design branch passed this information on in their weekly activity report (january 29,1913) and in march the advanced mission design branch team planned a launch to include suborbital staging of the external propellant tank with a recovery in the indian ocean. it also became apparent that not only could the suborbital staging work, but it would give the orbiter an additional 5,000 pound payload capacity. nasa elected, however, to retain the previous 32,000 pound payload requirement, and use the savings to reduce the thrust of the solid rocket boosters, and substantially lower flight costs. nasa subsequently estimated total program savings of $238 million.47 costs remained a compelling ingredient in shuttle design. at almost every step design and development options constantly appeared. thompson pointed out that nasa selected the more advanced, higher performance main liquid rocket engine over lower pressure but less costly engine as used in the upper stages of the apollo program. despite its higher developmental costs, the higher pressure engine could drive a larger orbiter, created maximum launch acceleration, and improved abort capabilities, and in total seemed to offer better capabilities at reasonable costs. once the expendable tank design was accepted, nasa restacked the launch, enabling the use of the high 294 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 performance orbiter engines throughout the launch phase, and gained the protective margin of orbiter engine start and thrust verification before the main booster ignited. another "developmental" decision had to do with attempting a crewless test flight. the guidance, navigation and control systems on the shuttle, however, were constructed for human control. such a shuttle flight, if it could be accomplished, would not truly test the shuttle flight controls. the first flight of the shuttle then, would be a piloted flight. 48 one problem that seemed to defy a wholly satisfactory solution had to do with insulating the orbiter adequately for its return into the atmosphere, a journey that generated temperatures on its outer body of 3,000° f (1,650°c). designers recognized two basic approaches to the problem. one was to use conventional aircraft materials such as aluminum, titanium, and composites for the body and then insulate over the external skin with silicate materials. another was to build a "hot structure" of metals that could withstand the high temperatures and absorb and disperse the temperatures throughout the external skin. this entailed the development of new metals. nasa chose the more known quantities that is building the shuttle of basic aircraft metals, and overlaying the leading edges with thermal protective coatings.49 there were, however, no thermal protective materials in use that could adequately insulate against the high temperatures. those had to be developed. a task group of nasa engineers, working with lockheed, mcdonnell douglas, battelle/columbus laboratories and university scientists and engineers, developed a silicone type tile (high purity foamed silica coated with borosilicate glass) that could withstand the temperatures. but once developed, the tile created new problems. for one, it was extremely fragile. the tile was tested by simply firing missiles (such as a .22 slug) at the material to simulate an impact by a meteorite. the prototype tile crumbled. the tiles were then thickened and redesigned with a ludox (silicon boron) base. that seemed to work. then, the next problem involved attaching the tiles to the leading edges of the orbiter. that required the creation of new glues, several of them in fact, before a suitable adhesive could be found. finally, 31,000 tiles, each independently cast to fit the appropriate location on the shuttle, had to be hand glued to the leading edges. the job required 670,000 hours of labor (or 335 person years).50 while tile development might euphemistically be called "leading edge" technology, the work did reflect the fact that building a space shuttle required invention and new technology ranging from flush toilets that would work in the environment of space and the development of adhesives and insulating materials, to the creation of intricate life support, avionics, and computer systems. one of the important and enduring elements of shuttle development relates to the inception of new technology and the application of that technology to other areas. conventional airplane construction, air safety, navigation, and flight control have been rich recipients of nasa shuttle technology, as have human medicine, computers, plastics and metallurgy. the shuttle and space flight have had a much more pervasive and profound influence on americans than is evidenced by the construction of the vehicle, or by its flights into space. its greatest impact has been on earth, rather than in space. the significance of the space shuttle lay not in its flight per se, but in its payload, that is the freight, cargo, laboratory, or experiments delivered from the earth into space, and returned safely to earth. shuttle payloads became one of nasa's most complex problems, as much in the social and political context as in the technical realm. because of the changing from engineering science to big science 295 payloads to be carried by the shuttle, each flight involved unique technical preparations and refitting. but the social and organizational structuring required for payload delivery proved most troublesome. a special ad hoc shuttle payload activities team, headed by charles j. donlon, manager of the shuttle program office, concluded that what would be needed in nasa would be "a radical change in thinking ... to meet the vastly different "ferris wheel" mode of operation ... required in the shuttle operational period." nasa must disassociate the transportation system from the hardware. authorization for shuttle payloads within and without nasa must be carefully defined. the authority of the payload project manager and the transportation operator must be carefully delineated, and the flight people must be out of the "payload approval loop." science payloads cannot be given lower priority than commercial payloads. lead times for the development of payloads and the boarding of payloads need to be short in order to make the system work. and the committee particularly (and repeatedly) warned of the problem of competition among nasa centers for control over payload operations and decisions. there was considerable skepticism that nasa could ever truly become a service organization, which would be required for effective shuttle operations, as opposed to its traditional mode of operation as a research and development agency.51 thus, the effort to build and launch the first shuttle involved some very basic social and philosophical re evaluations, as well as technological innovation. despite the problems, and continuing financial constraints, nasa anticipated the first shuttle flight could occur in 1978. but budget pressures and technical problems continued to cause "slippages." as early as 1972, dale myers believed that cost overruns being experienced in the skylab program would delay shuttle development and possibly cause it to be cancelled: "the shuttle program will live or die based on our capability to keep it reasonably on schedule, and this first schedule impact caused by funding limitations will cause an increase of cost at completion which cannot now be estimated'' delays did increase costs, and technical problems as with the tiles, the tanks, and the rocket motors did so as well.52 for example, rockwell engineers working on the orbiter's thermal protection system (the insulating tiles) complained that funding shortages caused work on the thermal protection system to be performed out of sequence and later than planned. budget constraints often led to deferring quality testing. problems were identified much later than they should have been. more work had to be done (at additional costs) simply to try to minimize the impact of performing tasks out of sequence. design work on the thermal protection system originally required 18,750 drawings by 1981 the required engineering drawings had increased to 25,456 (a 35 percent increase) because of delays and changes. rockwell sought a "program adjustment," that is more money to compensate for the additional costs.53 wayne young, whose job was management integration in the shuttle program office at the johnson space center, explained that the shuttle came into being in "an austere budget environment." nasa had to first look at the budget, and then decide what could be done within that financial framework. decisions sometimes had to be made on the basis of costs, rather than on the basis of engineering, as costs rose, scheduling and integration became even more critical .54 296 the space shuttle's first flight: sts 1 in 1977 the fuselage of orbiter 101, designated the enterprise (which would not be the first shuttle to be launched), had been completed and the columbia neared completion. congress authorized, before the end of the decade, the construction of five shuttles (including the challenger, discovery, and atlantis) estimated at a cost of $550 to $600 million each. each finally exceeded $1 billion. during the year, nasa conducted five unpowered glide tests by dropping the craft from a boeing 747. rockwell's rocketdyne division began testing the space shuttle main engine at the national space testing laboratory (formerly the mississippi test facility, and soon to be stennis space center) in march. tests on the engine terminated after 70 seconds when a fire erupted in the engine causing damage to the a 1 test stand. rockwell and nasa engineers conducted over 650 test firings between 1977 and 1980 before the first shuttle flight in 1981.55 the problems most often encountered had to do with the use of conventional valves and fittings in a very unconventional 6.5 million pound thrust hydrogen oxygen engine. by the time the columbia fired its engines on the launch pad at kennedy space center in florida, on april 12, 1981, the space shuttle already had experienced a long and from engineering science to big science 297 difficult history. simply being there, on the launch pad, was something of a triumph. the greater achievement lay ahead. the three main shuttle engines fired in rapid sequence. then the twin solid rocket boosters, each generating 2.65 million pounds of thrust, ignited. columbia lifted off. just short of leaving the earth's gravitational pull, the solid rocket boosters burned out, separated from the orbiter, and parachuted into the atlantic where they were retrieved. the shuttle main engines continued to burn, taking fuel from the external tank. the main shuttle engine cut off, and the external tank detached and disintegrated as it reentered the atmosphere. the columbia then fired its two orbital maneuvering system engines. the first burn put it into orbit, a second bum stabilized the circular orbit about the earth. twelve minutes had elapsed since launch.56 the shuttle carried mission commander john w. young, a georgia tech aeronautical engineer and a space veteran who made his first space flight aboard gemini 3, and then was command module pilot for apollo 10 and commander of the apollo 16 flight. robert l. crippin, a native of beaumont, texas, and graduate of the university of texas, had come into the astronaut training program by way of an aborted air force manned orbiting laboratory program. during the launch his heartbeat rose from 60 to 130 per minute. he described it as "one fantastic ride!"57 the columbia changed orbits, and for most of the flight flew in a tail forward upsidedown position, relative to the earth, giving the crew a better view of earth and its horizon. young and crippin checked all systems, the computers, navigational jet thrusters, and huge cargo bay doors. the ship began the return at 12:22 est on april 14. young and crippin fired the orbital maneuvering rockets for two minutes and twenty seven seconds to reduce their speed to less than the orbital velocity of 17,500 miles per hour. gravity would do the rest. they began an hour long descent. they fired their attitude control thrusters to turn columbia right side up and nose forward. thrusters were fired again to keep the nose up so that the thermal protective tiles could absorb the heat of reentry. the columbia lost speed as its altitude dropped, and over rogers dry lake in the mojave desert, crippen and young banked the ship sharply, looped back into a landing pattern, and touched down at a speed of 215 miles per hour, about twice that of a commercial airliner. "the touchdown marked the successful conclusion of sts 1, 2 days, six hours, twenty minutes and fifty two seconds after lift off from florida." president ronald reagan greeted the returning crewmen, "today our friends and adversaries are reminded that we are a free people capable of great deeds. we are a free people in search of progress for mankind."58 that search for progress, in the form of a reusable spacecraft, involved not only nasa, and the industries and astronauts who were identified as the recipients of the 1981 collier trophy, but reflected more fully the past and present energies, initiatives, technologies, aspirations, and capital investments of the american people.

apollo 1, initially designated as 204, was planned to be the first crewed mission of the apollo program,[1] the american undertaking to land the first man on the moon. it was planned to launch on february 21, 1967, as the first low earth orbital test of the apollo command and service module. the mission never flew; a cabin fire during a launch rehearsal test at cape kennedy air force station launch complex 34 on january 27 killed all three crew members command pilot gus grissom, senior pilot ed white, and pilot roger b. chaffee and destroyed the command module (cm). the name apollo 1, chosen by the crew, was made official by nasa in their honor after the fire. immediately after the fire, nasa convened an accident review board to determine the cause of the fire, and both chambers of the united states congress conducted their own committee inquiries to oversee nasa's investigation. the ignition source of the fire was determined to be electrical, and the fire spread rapidly due to combustible nylon material and the high pressure pure oxygen cabin atmosphere. rescue was prevented by the plug door hatch, which could not be opened against the internal pressure of the cabin. because the rocket was unfueled, the test had not been considered hazardous, and emergency preparedness for it was poor. during the congressional investigation, senator walter mondale publicly revealed a nasa internal document citing problems with prime apollo contractor north american aviation, which became known as the phillips report. this disclosure embarrassed nasa administrator james e. webb, who was unaware of the document's existence, and attracted controversy to the apollo program. despite congressional displeasure at nasa's lack of openness, both congressional committees ruled that the issues raised in the report had no bearing on the accident. crewed apollo flights were suspended for twenty months while the command module's hazards were addressed. however, the development and uncrewed testing of the lunar module (lm) and saturn v rocket continued. the saturn ib launch vehicle for apollo 1, as 204, was used for the first lm test flight, apollo 5. the first successful crewed apollo mission was flown by apollo 1's backup crew on apollo 7 in october 1968. as 204 was to be the first crewed test flight of the apollo command and service module (csm) to earth orbit, launched on a saturn ib rocket. as 204 was to test launch operations, ground tracking and control facilities and the performance of the apollo saturn launch assembly and would have lasted up to two weeks, depending on how the spacecraft performed.[3] the csm for this flight, number 012 built by north american aviation (naa), was a block i version designed before the lunar orbit rendezvous landing strategy was chosen; therefore it lacked the capability of docking with the lunar module. this was incorporated into the block ii csm design, along with lessons learned in block i. block ii would be test flown with the lm when the latter was ready.[4] director of flight crew operations deke slayton selected the first apollo crew in january 1966, with grissom as command pilot, white as senior pilot, and rookie donn f. eisele as pilot. but eisele dislocated his shoulder twice aboard the kc 135 weightlessness training aircraft, and had to undergo surgery on january 27. slayton replaced him with chaffee,[5] and nasa announced the crew selection on march 21, 1966. james mcdivitt, david scott and russell schweickart were named as the backup crew.[6] on september 29, walter schirra, eisele, and walter cunningham were named as the prime crew for a second block i csm flight, as 205.[7] nasa planned to follow this with an uncrewed test flight of the lm (as 206), then the third crewed mission would be a dual flight designated as 278 (or as 207/208), in which as 207 would launch the first crewed block ii csm, which would then rendezvous and dock with the lm launched uncrewed on as 208.[8] in march, nasa was studying the possibility of flying the first apollo mission as a joint space rendezvous with the final project gemini mission, gemini 12 in november 1966.[9] but by may, delays in making apollo ready for flight just by itself, and the extra time needed to incorporate compatibility with the gemini, made that impractical.[10] this became moot when slippage in readiness of the as 204 spacecraft caused the last quarter 1966 target date to be missed, and the mission was rescheduled for february 21, 1967.[11] in october 1966, nasa announced the flight would carry a small television camera to broadcast live from the command module. the camera would also be used to allow flight controllers to monitor the spacecraft's instrument panel in flight.[12] television cameras were carried aboard all crewed apollo missions.[13] grissom's crew received approval in june 1966 to design a mission patch with the name apollo 1 (though the approval was subsequently withdrawn pending a final decision on the mission designation, which was not resolved until after the fire). the design's center depicts a command and service module flying over the southeastern united states with florida (the launch point) prominent. the moon is seen in the distance, symbolic of the eventual program goal. a yellow border carries the mission and astronaut names with another border set with stars and stripes, trimmed in gold. the insignia was designed by the crew, with the artwork done by north american aviation employee allen stevens.[14][15] the apollo command and service module was much bigger and far more complex than any previous crewed spacecraft. in october 1963, joseph f. shea was named apollo spacecraft program office (aspo) manager, responsible for managing the design and construction of both the csm and the lm. in a spacecraft review meeting held with shea on august 19, 1966 (a week before delivery), the crew expressed concern about the amount of flammable material (mainly nylon netting and velcro) in the cabin, which both astronauts and technicians found convenient for holding tools and equipment in place. although shea gave the spacecraft a passing grade, after the meeting they gave him a crew portrait they had posed with heads bowed and hands clasped in prayer, with the inscription: it isn't that we don't trust you, joe, but this time we've decided to go over your head.[16]: 184 shea gave his staff orders to tell north american to remove the flammables from the cabin, but did not supervise the issue personally.[16]: 185 north american shipped spacecraft cm 012 to kennedy space center on august 26, 1966, under a conditional certificate of flight worthiness: 113 significant incomplete planned engineering changes had to be completed at ksc. that was not all; an additional 623 engineering change orders were made and completed after delivery.[17]: 6 3 grissom became so frustrated with the inability of the training simulator engineers to keep up with the spacecraft changes that he took a lemon from a tree by his house[18] and hung it on the simulator.[7] the command and service modules were mated in the ksc altitude chamber in september, and combined system testing was performed. altitude testing was performed first uncrewed, then with both the prime and backup crews, from october 10 through december 30. during this testing, the environmental control unit in the command module was found to have a design flaw, and was sent back to the manufacturer for design changes and rework. the returned ecu then leaked water/glycol coolant, and had to be returned a second time. also during this time, a propellant tank in another service module had ruptured during testing at naa, prompting the removal from the ksc test chamber of the service module so it could be tested for signs of the tank problem. these tests were negative. in december the second block i flight as 205 was canceled as unnecessary; schirra, eisele and cunningham were reassigned as the backup crew for apollo 1. mcdivitt's crew was now promoted to prime crew of the block ii/lm mission, re designated as 258 because the as 205 launch vehicle would be used in place of as 207. a third crewed mission was planned to launch the csm and lm together on a saturn v (as 503) to an elliptical medium earth orbit (meo), to be crewed by frank borman, michael collins and william anders. mcdivitt, scott and schweickart had started their training for as 258 in cm 101 at the naa plant in downey, california, when the apollo 1 accident occurred.[19] once all outstanding csm 012 hardware problems had been fixed, the reassembled spacecraft completed a successful altitude chamber test with schirra's backup crew on december 30.[17]: 4 2 according to the final report of the accident investigation board, "at the post test debriefing the backup flight crew expressed their satisfaction with the condition and performance of the spacecraft."[17]: 4 2 this would appear to contradict the account given in the 1994 book lost moon: the perilous voyage of apollo 13 by jeffrey kluger and astronaut james lovell, that "when the trio climbed out of the ship, ... schirra made it clear that he was not pleased with what he had seen," and that he later warned grissom and shea that "there's nothing wrong with this ship that i can point to, but it just makes me uncomfortable. something about it just doesn't ring right," and that grissom should get out at the first sign of trouble.[20] after the successful altitude tests, the spacecraft was removed from the altitude chamber on january 3, 1967, and mated to its saturn ib launch vehicle on pad 34 on january 6. grissom said in a february 1963 interview that nasa could not eliminate risk despite precautions:[21] an awful lot of people have devoted more effort than i can describe to [make] project mercury and its successors, as safe as humanly possible ... but we also recognize that there remains a great deal of risk, especially in initial operations, regardless of planning. you just can't forecast all the things that could happen, or when they could happen. "i suppose that someday we are going to have a failure. in every other business there are failures, and they are bound to happen sooner or later", he added.[21] grissom was asked about the fear of potential catastrophe in a december 1966 interview:[22] you sort of have to put that out of your mind. there's always a possibility that you can have a catastrophic failure, of course; this can happen on any flight; it can happen on the last one as well as the first one. so, you just plan as best you can to take care of all these eventualities, and you get a well trained crew and you go fly. the launch simulation on january 27, 1967, on pad 34, was a "plugs out" test to determine whether the spacecraft would operate nominally on (simulated) internal power while detached from all cables and umbilicals. passing this test was essential to making the february 21 launch date. the test was considered non hazardous because neither the launch vehicle nor the spacecraft was loaded with fuel or cryogenics and all pyrotechnic systems (explosive bolts) were disabled.[11] at 1:00 pm est (18:00 gmt) on january 27, first grissom, then chaffee, and white entered the command module fully pressure suited, and were strapped into their seats and hooked up to the spacecraft's oxygen and communication systems. grissom immediately noticed a strange odor in the air circulating through his suit which he compared to "sour buttermilk", and the simulated countdown was put on hold at 1:20 pm, while air samples were taken. no cause of the odor could be found, and the countdown was resumed at 2:42 pm. the accident investigation found this odor not to be related to the fire.[11] three minutes after the count was resumed the hatch installation was started. the hatch consisted of three parts: a removable inner hatch which stayed inside the cabin; a hinged outer hatch which was part of the spacecraft's heat shield; and an outer hatch cover which was part of the boost protective cover enveloping the entire command module to protect it from aerodynamic heating during launch and from launch escape rocket exhaust in the event of a launch abort. the boost hatch cover was partially, but not fully, latched in place because the flexible boost protective cover was slightly distorted by some cabling run under it to provide the simulated internal power (the spacecraft's fuel cell reactants were not loaded for this test). after the hatches were sealed, the air in the cabin was replaced with pure oxygen at 16.7 psi (115 kpa), 2 psi (14 kpa) higher than atmospheric pressure.[11][17]: enclosure v 21, [181] movement by the astronauts was detected by the spacecraft's inertial measurement unit and the astronauts' biomedical sensors, and also indicated by increases in oxygen spacesuit flow, and sounds from grissom's stuck open microphone. the stuck microphone was part of a problem with the communications loop connecting the crew, the operations and checkout building, and the complex 34 blockhouse control room. the poor communications led grissom to remark: "how are we going to get to the moon if we can't talk between two or three buildings?" the simulated countdown was put on hold again at 5:40 pm while attempts were made to troubleshoot the communications problem. all countdown functions up to the simulated internal power transfer had been successfully completed by 6:20 pm, and at 6:30 the count remained on hold at t minus 10 minutes.[11] the crew members were using the time to run through their checklist again, when a momentary increase in ac bus 2 voltage occurred. nine seconds later (at 6:31:04.7), one of the astronauts (some listeners and laboratory analysis indicate grissom) exclaimed "hey!", "fire!",[17]: 5 8 or "flame!";[23] this was followed by two seconds of scuffling sounds through grissom's open microphone. this was immediately followed at 6:31:06.2 (23:31:06.2 gmt) by someone (believed by most listeners, and supported by laboratory analysis, to be chaffee) saying, "[i've, or we've] got a fire in the cockpit." after 6.8 seconds of silence, a second, badly garbled transmission was heard by various listeners (who believed this transmission was made by chaffee[17]: 5 9 ) as: the transmission lasted 5.0 seconds and ended with a cry of pain.[17]: 5 8, 5 9 some blockhouse witnesses said that they saw white on the television monitors, reaching for the inner hatch release handle[11] as flames in the cabin spread from left to right.[17]: 5 3 the heat of the fire fed by pure oxygen caused the pressure to rise to 29 psi (200 kpa), which ruptured the command module's inner wall at 6:31:19 (23:31:19 gmt, initial phase of the fire). flames and gases then rushed outside the command module through open access panels to two levels of the pad service structure. the intense heat, dense smoke, and ineffective gas masks designed for toxic fumes rather than smoke, hampered the ground crew's attempts to rescue the men. there were fears the command module had exploded, or soon would, and that the fire might ignite the solid fuel rocket in the launch escape tower above the command module, which would have likely killed nearby ground personnel, and possibly have destroyed the pad.[11] as the pressure was released by the cabin rupture, the rush of gases within the module caused flames to spread across the cabin, beginning the second phase. the third phase began when most of the oxygen was consumed and was replaced with atmospheric air, essentially quenching the fire, but causing high concentrations of carbon monoxide and heavy smoke to fill the cabin, and large amounts of soot to be deposited on surfaces as they cooled.[11][17]: 5 3, 5 4 it took five minutes for the pad workers to open all three hatch layers, and they could not drop the inner hatch to the cabin floor as intended, so they pushed it out of the way to one side. although the cabin lights remained on, they were unable to see the astronauts through the dense smoke. as the smoke cleared they found the bodies, but were not able to remove them. the fire had partly melted grissom's and white's nylon space suits and the hoses connecting them to the life support system. grissom had removed his restraints and was lying on the floor of the spacecraft. white's restraints were burned through, and he was found lying sideways just below the hatch. it was determined that he had tried to open the hatch per the emergency procedure, but was not able to do so against the internal pressure. chaffee was found strapped into his right hand seat, as procedure called for him to maintain communication until white opened the hatch. because of the large strands of melted nylon fusing the astronauts to the cabin interior, removing the bodies took nearly 90 minutes. the bodies were only able to be removed after 7.5 hours from the time the incident took place, due to the gasses and toxins present which prevented medical personnel from entering initially.[11] deke slayton was possibly the first nasa official to examine the spacecraft's interior.[24] his testimony contradicted the official report concerning the position of grissom's body. slayton said of grissom and white's bodies, "it is very difficult for me to determine the exact relationships of these two bodies. they were sort of jumbled together, and i couldn't really tell which head even belonged to which body at that point. i guess the only thing that was real obvious is that both bodies were at the lower edge of the hatch. they were not in the seats. they were almost completely clear of the seat areas."[24][25] as a result of the in flight failure of the gemini 8 mission on march 17, 1966, nasa deputy administrator robert seamans wrote and implemented management instruction 8621.1 on april 14, 1966, defining mission failure investigation policy and procedures. this modified nasa's existing accident procedures, based on military aircraft accident investigation, by giving the deputy administrator the option of performing independent investigations of major failures, beyond those for which the various program office officials were normally responsible. it declared, "it is nasa policy to investigate and document the causes of all major mission failures which occur in the conduct of its space and aeronautical activities and to take appropriate corrective actions as a result of the findings and recommendations."[26] immediately after the fire nasa administrator james e. webb asked president lyndon b. johnson to allow nasa to handle the investigation according to its established procedure, promising to be truthful in assessing blame, and to keep the appropriate leaders of congress informed.[27] deputy director seamans then ordered the establishment of the apollo 204 review board chaired by langley research center director floyd l. thompson, which included astronaut frank borman, spacecraft designer maxime faget, and six others. on february 1, cornell university professor frank a. long left the board,[28] and was replaced by robert w. van dolah of the u.s. bureau of mines.[29] the next day north american's chief engineer for apollo, george jeffs, resigned as well.[30] seamans ordered all apollo 1 hardware and software impounded, to be released only under control of the board. after thorough stereo photographic documentation of the cm 012 interior, the board ordered its disassembly using procedures tested by disassembling the identical cm 014 and conducted a thorough investigation of every part. the board also reviewed the astronauts' autopsy results and interviewed witnesses. seamans sent webb weekly status reports of the investigation's progress, and the board issued its final report on april 5, 1967.[17] according to the board, grissom suffered severe third degree burns on more than one third of his body and his spacesuit was almost completely destroyed. white suffered third degree burns on almost half of his body and a quarter of his spacesuit had melted away. chaffee suffered third degree burns on almost a quarter of his body and a small portion of his spacesuit was damaged. the autopsy report determined that the primary cause of death for all three astronauts was cardiac arrest caused by high concentrations of carbon monoxide. burns suffered by the crew were not believed to be major factors, and it was concluded that most of them had occurred postmortem. asphyxiation occurred after the fire melted the astronauts' suits and oxygen tubes, exposing them to the lethal atmosphere of the cabin.[17]: 6 1 the review board identified several major factors which combined to cause the fire and the astronauts' deaths:[11] the review board determined that the electrical power momentarily failed at 23:30:55 gmt, and found evidence of several electric arcs in the interior equipment. they were unable to conclusively identify a single ignition source. they determined that the fire most likely started near the floor in the lower left section of the cabin, close to the environmental control unit.[17]: 6 1 it spread from the left wall of the cabin to the right, with the floor being affected only briefly.[17]: 5 3 the board noted that a silver plated copper wire, running through an environmental control unit near the center couch, had become stripped of its teflon insulation and abraded by repeated opening and closing of a small access door.[a] this weak point in the wiring also ran near a junction in an ethylene glycol/water cooling line that had been prone to leaks. electrolysis of ethylene glycol solution with the silver anode of the wire was discovered at the manned spacecraft center on may 29, 1967, to be a hazard capable of causing a violent exothermic reaction, igniting the ethylene glycol mixture in the command module's pure oxygen atmosphere. experiments at the illinois institute of technology confirmed the hazard existed for silver plated wires, but not for copper only or nickel plated copper. in july, aspo directed both north american and grumman to ensure no silver or silver coated electrical contacts existed in the vicinity of possible glycol spills in the apollo spacecraft.[33] the plugs out test had been run to simulate the launch procedure, with the cabin pressurized with pure oxygen at the nominal launch level of 16.7 psi (115 kpa), 2 psi (14 kpa) above standard sea level atmospheric pressure. this is more than five times the 3 psi (21 kpa) partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere, and provides an environment in which materials not normally considered flammable will be highly flammable and burst into flame.[34][35] the high pressure oxygen atmosphere was similar to that which had been used successfully in the mercury and gemini programs. the pressure before launch was deliberately greater than ambient in order to drive out the nitrogen containing air and replace it with pure oxygen, and also to seal the plug door hatch cover. during the launch, the pressure would have been gradually reduced to the in flight level of 5 psi (34 kpa), providing sufficient oxygen for the astronauts to breathe while reducing the fire risk. the apollo 1 crew had successfully tested this procedure with their spacecraft in the operations and checkout building altitude (vacuum) chamber on october 18 and 19, 1966, and the backup crew of schirra, eisele and cunningham had repeated it on december 30.[36] the investigation board noted that, during these tests, the command module had been fully pressurized with pure oxygen four times, for a total of six hours and fifteen minutes, two and a half hours longer than it had been during the plugs out test.[17]: 4 2 [b] the review board cited "many types and classes of combustible material" close to ignition sources. the nasa crew systems department had installed 34 square feet (3.2 m2) of velcro throughout the spacecraft, almost like carpeting. this velcro was found to be flammable in a high pressure 100% oxygen environment.[35] astronaut buzz aldrin states in his book men from earth that the flammable material had been removed per the crew's august 19 complaints and joseph shea's order, but was replaced before the august 26 delivery to cape kennedy.[37] the inner hatch cover used a plug door design, sealed by higher pressure inside the cabin than outside. the normal pressure level used for launch (2 psi (14 kpa) above ambient) created sufficient force to prevent removing the cover until the excess pressure was vented. emergency procedure called for grissom to open the cabin vent valve first, allowing white to remove the cover,[11] but grissom was prevented from doing this because the valve was located to the left, behind the initial wall of flames. also, while the system could easily vent the normal pressure, its flow capacity was utterly incapable of handling the rapid increase to 29 psi (200 kpa) caused by the intense heat of the fire.[17]: 5 3 north american had originally suggested the hatch open outward and use explosive bolts to blow the hatch in case of emergency, as had been done in project mercury. nasa did not agree, arguing the hatch could accidentally open, as it had on grissom's liberty bell 7 flight, so the manned spacecraft center designers rejected the explosive design in favor of a mechanically operated one for the gemini and apollo programs.[38] before the fire, the apollo astronauts had recommended changing the design to an outward opening hatch, and this was already slated for inclusion in the block ii command module design. according to donald k. slayton's testimony before the house investigation of the accident, this was based on ease of exit for spacewalks and at the end of flight, rather than for emergency exit.[31] the board noted that the test planners had failed to identify the test as hazardous; emergency equipment (such as gas masks) were inadequate to handle this type of fire; that fire, rescue, and medical teams were not in attendance; and that the spacecraft work and access areas contained many hindrances to emergency response such as steps, sliding doors, and sharp turns.[17]: 6 1, 6 2 when designing the mercury spacecraft, nasa had considered using a nitrogen/oxygen mixture to reduce the fire risk near launch, but rejected it based on a number of considerations. first, a pure oxygen atmosphere is comfortably breathable by humans at 5 psi (34 kpa), greatly reducing the pressure load on the spacecraft in the vacuum of space. second, nitrogen used with the in flight pressure reduction carried the risk of decompression sickness (known as "the bends"). but the decision to eliminate the use of any gas but oxygen was criticized when a serious accident occurred on april 21, 1960, in which mcdonnell aircraft test pilot g. b. north passed out and was seriously injured when testing a mercury cabin / spacesuit atmosphere system in a vacuum chamber. the problem was found to be nitrogen rich (oxygen poor) air leaking from the cabin into his spacesuit feed.[39] north american aviation had suggested using an oxygen/nitrogen mixture for apollo, but nasa overruled this. the pure oxygen design was judged to be safer, less complicated, and lighter in weight.[40] in his monograph project apollo: the tough decisions, deputy administrator seamans wrote that nasa's worst mistake in engineering judgment was not running a fire test on the command module before the plugs out test.[41] in the first episode of the 2009 bbc documentary series nasa: triumph and tragedy, jim mcdivitt said that nasa had no idea how a 100% oxygen atmosphere would influence burning.[42] similar remarks by other astronauts were expressed in the 2007 documentary film in the shadow of the moon.[43] several fires in high oxygen test environments had occurred before the apollo fire. in 1962, usaf colonel b. dean smith was conducting a test of the gemini space suit with a colleague in a pure oxygen chamber at brooks air force base in san antonio, texas, when a fire broke out, destroying the chamber. smith and his partner narrowly escaped.[44] on november 17, 1962, a fire broke out in a chamber at the navy's air crew equipment laboratory during a pure oxygen test. the fire was started because a faulty ground wire arced onto nearby insulation. after attempts to extinguish the fire by smothering it, the crew escaped the chamber with minor burns across large parts of their bodies.[45] on february 16, 1965, united states navy divers fred jackson and john youmans were killed in a decompression chamber fire at the experimental diving unit in washington, d.c., shortly after additional oxygen was added to the chamber's atmospheric mix.[46][47] in addition to fires with personnel present, the apollo environmental control system experienced several accidents from 1964 to 1966 due to various hardware malfunctions. notable is the april 28, 1966, fire, as the subsequent investigation found that several new measures should be taken to avoid fires, including improved selection of materials and that esc and command module circuits have a potential for arcing or short circuits.[48] other oxygen fire occurrences are documented in reports archived in the national air and space museum,[49] such as: incidents had also occurred in the soviet space program, but due to the soviet government's policy of secrecy, these were not disclosed until well after the apollo 1 fire. cosmonaut valentin bondarenko died on march 23, 1961, from burns sustained in a fire while participating in a 15 day endurance experiment in a high oxygen isolation chamber, less than three weeks before the first vostok crewed space flight; this was disclosed on january 28, 1986.[50][51][52] during the voskhod 2 mission in march 1965, cosmonauts pavel belyayev and alexei leonov could not completely seal the spacecraft hatch after leonov's historic first walk in space. the spacecraft's environmental control system responded to the leaking air by adding more oxygen to the cabin, causing the concentration level to rise as high as 45%. the crew and ground controllers worried about the possibility of fire, remembering bondarenko's death four years earlier.[50]: 457 on january 31, 1967, four days after the apollo 1 fire, united states air force airmen william f. bartley jr. and richard g. harmon were killed in a flash fire while tending laboratory rabbits in the two man space environment simulator, a pure oxygen chamber at the school of aerospace medicine at brooks air force base.[53][54][55][56][57] like the apollo 1 fire, the school fire was caused by an electrical spark in a pure oxygen environment. the widows of the apollo 1 crew sent condolence letters to bartley and harmon's families.[57] committees in both houses of the united states congress with oversight of the space program soon launched investigations, including the senate committee on aeronautical and space sciences, chaired by senator clinton p. anderson. seamans, webb, manned space flight administrator dr. george e. mueller, and apollo program director maj gen samuel c. phillips were called to testify before anderson's committee.[58] in the february 27 hearing, senator walter f. mondale asked webb if he knew of a report of extraordinary problems with the performance of north american aviation on the apollo contract. webb replied he did not, and deferred to his subordinates on the witness panel. mueller and phillips responded they too were unaware of any such "report".[40] however, in late 1965, just over a year before the accident, phillips had headed a "tiger team" investigating the causes of inadequate quality, schedule delays, and cost overruns in both the apollo csm and the saturn v second stage (for which north american was also prime contractor). he gave an oral presentation (with transparencies) of his team's findings to mueller and seamans, and also presented them in a memo to north american president john l. atwood, to which mueller appended his own strongly worded memo to atwood.[59] during mondale's 1967 questioning about what was to become known as the "phillips report", seamans was afraid mondale might actually have seen a hard copy of phillips' presentation, and responded that contractors have occasionally been subjected to on site progress reviews; perhaps this was what mondale's information referred to.[41] mondale continued to refer to "the report" despite phillips' refusal to characterize it as such, and, angered by what he perceived as webb's deception and concealment of important program problems from congress, he questioned nasa's selection of north american as prime contractor. seamans later wrote that webb roundly chastised him in the cab ride leaving the hearing, for volunteering information which led to the disclosure of phillips' memo.[41] on may 11, webb issued a statement defending nasa's november 1961 selection of north american as the prime contractor for apollo. this was followed on june 9 by seamans filing a seven page memorandum documenting the selection process. webb eventually provided a controlled copy of phillips' memo to congress. the senate committee noted in its final report nasa's testimony that "the findings of the [phillips] task force had no effect on the accident, did not lead to the accident, and were not related to the accident",[58]: 7 but stated in its recommendations: notwithstanding that in nasa's judgment the contractor later made significant progress in overcoming the problems, the committee believes it should have been informed of the situation. the committee does not object to the position of the administrator of nasa, that all details of government/contractor relationships should not be put in the public domain. however, that position in no way can be used as an argument for not bringing this or other serious situations to the attention of the committee.[58]: 11 freshman senators edward w. brooke iii and charles h. percy jointly wrote an additional views section appended to the committee report, chastising nasa more strongly than anderson for not having disclosed the phillips review to congress. mondale wrote his own, even more strongly worded additional view, accusing nasa of "evasiveness, ... lack of candor, ... patronizing attitude toward congress ... refusal to respond fully and forthrightly to legitimate congressional inquiries, and ... solicitous concern for corporate sensitivities at a time of national tragedy".[58]: 16 the potential political threat to apollo blew over, due in large part to the support of president lyndon b. johnson, who at the time still wielded a measure of influence with the congress from his own senatorial experience. he was a staunch supporter of nasa since its inception, had even recommended the moon program to president john f. kennedy in 1961, and was skilled at portraying it as part of kennedy's legacy. relations between nasa and north american deteriorated over the assignment of blame. north american argued unsuccessfully it was not responsible for the fatal error in spacecraft atmosphere design. finally, webb contacted atwood, and demanded either he or chief engineer harrison a. storms resign. atwood elected to fire storms.[60] on the nasa side, joseph shea resorted to barbiturates and alcohol in order to help him cope.[16]: 213 214 nasa administrator james webb became increasingly worried about shea's mental state. shea was asked to take an extended voluntary leave of absence, but shea refused, threatening to resign rather than take leave. as a compromise, he agreed to meet with a psychiatrist and to abide by an independent assessment of his psychological fitness. this approach to remove shea from his position was also unsuccessful.[16]: 217 219 finally, six months after the fire, shea's superiors reassigned him to nasa headquarters in washington, d.c. shea felt that his new post was a "non job," and left after only two months.[61] from this day forward, flight control will be known by two words: tough and competent. tough means we are forever accountable for what we do or what we fail to do. we will never again compromise our responsibilities ... competent means we will never take anything for granted ... mission control will be perfect. when you leave this meeting today you will go to your office and the first thing you will do there is to write tough and competent on your blackboards. it will never be erased. each day when you enter the room, these words will remind you of the price paid by grissom, white, and chaffee. these words are the price of admission to the ranks of mission control. gene kranz called a meeting of his staff in mission control three days after the accident, delivering a speech which has subsequently become one of nasa's principles.[62] speaking of the errors and overall attitude surrounding the apollo program before the accident, he said: "we were too 'gung ho' about the schedule and we blocked out all of the problems we saw each day in our work. every element of the program was in trouble and so were we."[63]: 204 he reminded the team of the perils and mercilessness of their endeavor, and stated the new requirement that every member of every team in mission control be "tough and competent", requiring nothing less than perfection throughout nasa's programs.[63]: 204 in 2003, following the space shuttle columbia disaster, nasa administrator sean o'keefe quoted kranz's speech, applying it to the columbia crew.[62] after the fire, the apollo program was grounded for review and redesign. the command module was found to be extremely hazardous and, in some instances, carelessly assembled (for example, a misplaced wrench socket was found in the cabin).[17]: 5 10 it was decided that the remaining block i spacecraft would be used only for uncrewed saturn v test flights. all crewed missions would use the block ii spacecraft, to which many command module design changes were made: thorough protocols were implemented for documenting spacecraft construction and maintenance. the astronauts' widows asked that apollo 1 be reserved for the flight their husbands never made, and on april 24, 1967, mueller, as associate administrator for manned space flight, announced this change officially: as 204 would be recorded as apollo 1, "first manned apollo saturn flight   failed on ground test".[1] even though three uncrewed apollo missions (as 201, as 202, and as 203) had previously occurred, only as 201 and as 202 carried spacecraft. therefore, the next mission, the first uncrewed saturn v test flight (as 501) would be designated apollo 4, with all subsequent flights numbered sequentially in the order flown. the first three flights would not be renumbered, and the names apollo 2 and apollo 3 would officially go unused.[65] mueller considered as 201 and as 202, the first and second flights of the apollo block i csm, as apollo 2 and 3 respectively.[66] the crewed flight hiatus allowed work to catch up on the saturn v and lunar module, which were encountering their own delays. apollo 4 flew in november 1967. apollo 1's (as 204) saturn ib rocket was taken down from launch complex 34, later reassembled at launch complex 37b and used to launch apollo 5, an uncrewed earth orbital test flight of the first lunar module, lm 1, in january 1968.[67] a second uncrewed saturn v as 502 flew as apollo 6 in april 1968, and grissom's backup crew of wally schirra, don eisele, and walter cunningham, finally flew the orbital test mission as apollo 7 (as 205), in a block ii csm in october 1968.[68] gus grissom and roger chaffee were buried at arlington national cemetery. ed white was buried at west point cemetery on the grounds of the united states military academy in west point, new york. nasa officials attempted to pressure pat white, ed white's widow, into allowing her husband also to be buried at arlington, against what she knew to be his wishes; their efforts were foiled by astronaut frank borman.[69] the names of the apollo 1 crew are among those of multiple astronauts who have died in the line of duty, listed on the space mirror memorial at the kennedy space center visitor complex in merritt island, florida. president jimmy carter awarded the congressional space medal of honor posthumously to grissom on october 1, 1978. president bill clinton awarded it to white and chaffee on december 17, 1997.[70] an apollo 1 mission patch was left on the moon's surface after the first crewed lunar landing by apollo 11 crew members neil armstrong and buzz aldrin.[71] the apollo 15 mission left on the surface of the moon a tiny memorial statue, fallen astronaut, along with a plaque containing the names of the apollo 1 astronauts, among others including soviet cosmonauts, who perished in the pursuit of human space flight.[72] after the apollo 1 fire, launch complex 34 was subsequently used only for the launch of apollo 7 and later dismantled down to the concrete launch pedestal, which remains at the site (.mw parser output .geo default,.mw parser output .geo dms,.mw parser output .geo dec{display:inline}.mw parser output .geo nondefault,.mw parser output .geo multi punct,.mw parser output .geo inline hidden{display:none}.mw parser output .longitude,.mw parser output .latitude{white space:nowrap}28°31′19″n 80°33′41″w﻿ / ﻿28.52182°n 80.56126°w﻿ / 28.52182;  80.56126) along with a few other concrete and steel reinforced structures. the pedestal bears two plaques commemorating the crew.[73] the "ad astra per aspera" plaque for "the crew of apollo 1" is seen in the 1998 film armageddon.[74] the "dedicated to the living memory of the crew of the apollo 1" plaque is quoted at the end of wayne hale's requiem for the nasa space shuttle program.[75] each year the families of the apollo 1 crew are invited to the site for a memorial, and the kennedy space center visitor complex includes the site during the tour of the historic cape canaveral launch sites.[76] in january 2005, three granite benches, built by a college classmate of one of the astronauts, were installed at the site on the southern edge of the launch pad. each bears the name of one of the astronauts and his military service insignia. the apollo 1 command module has never been on public display. after the accident, the spacecraft was removed and taken to kennedy space center to facilitate the review board's disassembly in order to investigate the cause of the fire. when the investigation was complete, it was moved to the nasa langley research center in hampton, virginia, and placed in a secured storage warehouse.[100] on february 17, 2007, the parts of cm 012 were moved approximately 90 feet (27 m) to a newer, environmentally controlled warehouse.[101] only a few weeks earlier, gus grissom's brother lowell publicly suggested cm 012 be permanently entombed in the concrete remains of launch complex 34.[102] on january 27, 2017, the 50th anniversary of the fire, nasa put the hatch from apollo 1 on display at the saturn v rocket center at kennedy space center visitors complex. ksc's visitor complex also houses memorials that include parts of challenger and columbia, located in the space shuttle atlantis exhibit. "this is way, way, way long overdue. but we're excited about it," said scott grissom, gus grissom's older son.[103] notes citations this article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the national aeronautics and space administration.

by: sarah pruitt updated: april 15, 2024 | original: may 31, 2018 after the soviet union launched sputnik in 1957, the united states entered a fierce competition with their communist rivals for dominance in space. the ensuing space race was filled with many notable successes including american astronauts walking and playing golf on the moon but the era was not without its failures, including some deadly catastrophes. the first fatal accident in the history of u.s. space flight occurred on january 27, 1967, during preparations for the first manned mission of the apollo space program. a flash fire broke out in the command module of apollo 204 during a simulated launch at cape canaveral air force station in florida, killing astronauts virgil “gus” grissom, edward white and roger chaffee of asphyxiation. a stray spark started the fire in the pure oxygen environment inside the module, and design flaws in the hatch door made it impossible to open in time to save the astronauts. in the aftermath of the accident, nasa officially designated the mission as apollo 1. just three months after the apollo 1 fire, russian cosmonaut vladimir komarov became the first fatality in space flight when soyuz 1, the first soviet space vehicle aimed at eventually reaching the moon, crashed into earth on april 24, 1967. soyuz 1 was still in the experimental stage at the time of the mission, and problems began almost immediately after it entered orbit, some nine minutes after launch. one of the solar panels failed to deploy, which cut the power supply and interfered with the spacecraft’s controls. the mission was aborted, but after a difficult reentry into earth’s atmosphere, the soyuz 1 parachutes failed to deploy correctly, and komarov was unable to escape before the spacecraft crashed violently to the ground in southeastern russia. seven lives were lost as communications failed in the face of public pressure to proceed with the launch despite dangerously cold conditions. it was supposed to be the third‑ever moon landing. it turned into a rescue mission. nasa’s first fatal spacecraft accident happened not in deep space but right on the launch pad. eager to outstrip their counterparts in the u.s. space program after the success of the moon landings, the russians launched the world’s first space station, salyut 1, in april 1971. that june, three cosmonauts aboard soyuz 11 spent three weeks conducting experiments and observations at the space station, earning hero status back at home. upon their return trip on june 30, the spacecraft made a normal reentry and a perfect (automatic) landing. but when the ground team opened the hatch, they found all three cosmonauts unresponsive. a faulty air vent had opened when the orbital and descent modules of soyuz 11 separated, and the cabin had depressurized; the cosmonauts, none of whom were wearing space suits, likely suffocated to death 30 minutes before landing. as a legacy of the soyuz 11 disaster, the soviet and u.s. space programs would pass requirements ensuring their cosmonauts and astronauts wear space suits during any phases of a mission where depressurization could possibly occur. on the bitterly cold morning of january 28, 1986, the space shuttle challenger broke apart 73 seconds after its launch from cape canaveral, crashing into the atlantic ocean from an altitude of some 50,000 feet. all seven astronauts aboard were killed including christa mcauliffe, a high school teacher who had been selected as part of a national “teacher in space” initiative. an investigation later found that nasa had known that extreme cold temperatures could result in damage to the spacecraft’s rubber o rings which separated its rocket boosters and prevented fuel leaks but elected to go ahead with the launch anyway, prompting widespread outrage and the temporary suspension of the space shuttle program. after a 16 day mission, the veteran space shuttle columbia (which made the shuttle program’s first flight in 1981) was reentering the earth’s atmosphere ahead of a planned landing at cape canaveral when tragedy struck: the shuttle’s orbiter broke into pieces, raining debris over eastern texas and killing all seven astronauts aboard. a small piece of insulating foam had broken loose from a fuel tank during launch and pierced columbia’s left wing, but because the foam had detached during earlier shuttle launches without incident, nasa officials didn’t think it was a problem. upon reentry, however, hot gases and smoke penetrated the damaged wing, causing it to break off and the rest of the shuttle to disintegrate. the columbia disaster marked the beginning of the end of the u.s. space shuttle program; nasa would retire its last space shuttle in 2011. portrait of the teacher who died in the tragic explosion of the space shuttle challenger in 1986. includes interviews with her parents and students. by: sarah pruitt sarah pruitt is a writer and editor based in seacoast new hampshire. she has been a frequent contributor to history.com since 2005, and is the author of breaking history: vanished! (lyons press, 2017), which chronicles some of history's most famous disappearances. we strive for accuracy and fairness. but if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! history reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate. get history’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week. by submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from history and a+e networks. you can opt out at any time. you must be 16 years or older and a resident of the united states. more details: privacy notice | terms of use | contact us © 2025, a&e television networks, llc. all rights reserved.

this is a timeline of space exploration which includes notable achievements, first accomplishments and milestones in humanity's exploration of outer space. this timeline generally does not distinguish achievements by a specific country or private company, as it considers humanity as a whole. see otherwise the timeline of private spaceflight or look for achievements by each space agency. first human made object in space (later defined as above the kármán line). first primate in space. first living organisms to fly in space and safely return. united states dr. otto berg's films [8] [9] [10] first spacecraft to attempt to impact the moon's surface. first artificial object in heliocentric orbit. first detection of solar wind. first gravity assist. first tasks performed in space. first successful planetary science mission. first probe to map the moon. first lunar spacecraft to be recovered successfully. first in person observations of earth from a distance.first trans earth injection. first crew exchange in space. first lunar mission to include a lunar landing module. first words spoken from another world. first sample return from another celestial body. first meet up between human explorers and a robotic spacecraft in space (on the moon). first lunar rover. first spacecraft to use all nuclear electrical power (snap 19 rtgs). first spacecraft beyond the orbit of mars. first spacecraft beyond the inner solar system. first use of solar wind for spacecraft orientation. first photograph of titan from deep space. first sound recording of another world (venus). first spacecraft beyond all solar system planets. first spacecraft to study all four of the solar system's giant planets at close range. first mission to survey the space environment above and below the poles of the sun. first landing on a moon other than earth's moon. first spacecraft in interstellar space. first flyby in the kuiper belt. first flyby of a trans neptunian object.last original encounter with one of the nine major planets recognized before 2006. first flyby of a contact binary. first spacecraft to make two different flybys in the kuiper belt. first germination of seeds on another celestial body. first production of oxygen on another celestial body (mars). first spacecraft to make contact with an asteroid moon (impact on dimorphos).

our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. apollo 11, the first space mission to put people on the moon, was launched on july 16, 1969. almost every major aspect of the flight of apollo 11 was witnessed via television by hundreds of millions of people in nearly every part of the globe, until splashdown in the pacific ocean on july 24. the saturn v rocket launched apollo 11. it made its flight from cape kennedy (now cape canaveral), florida, before hundreds of thousands of spectators. apollo 11's crew members were commander neil armstrong, lunar module pilot buzz aldrin, and command module pilot michael collins. the lunar module eagle of the apollo 11 mission landed on the moon on july 20, 1969. neil armstrong and buzz aldrin became the first people to land on the moon and walk on the lunar surface. the apollo 11 lunar module was on the moon for more than 21 hours. apollo 11, u.s. spaceflight during which commander neil armstrong and lunar module pilot edwin (“buzz”) aldrin, jr., on july 20, 1969, became the first people to land on the moon and walk the lunar surface. apollo 11 was the culmination of the apollo program and a massive national commitment by the united states to beat the soviet union in putting people on the moon. all told, 24 apollo astronauts visited the moon and 12 of them walked on its surface. additional nasa astronauts are scheduled to return to the moon by 2025 as part of the artemis space program. from the time of its launch on july 16, 1969, until the return splashdown on july 24, almost every major aspect of the flight of apollo 11 was witnessed via television by hundreds of millions of people in nearly every part of the globe. the pulse of humanity rose with the giant, 111 metre  (363 foot ) high, 3,038,500 kg (6,698,700 pound) saturn v launch vehicle as it made its flawless flight from pad 39a at cape kennedy (now cape canaveral), florida, before hundreds of thousands of spectators. so accurate was the translunar insertion that three of the en route trajectory corrections planned were not necessary. aboard apollo 11 were armstrong, aldrin, and command module pilot michael collins. their enthusiasm was evident from the beginning, as armstrong exclaimed, “this saturn gave us a magnificent ride.…it was beautiful!” the third stage of the saturn then fired to start the crew on their 376,400 km (234,000 mile) journey to the moon. the three astronauts conducted their transposition and docking maneuvers, first turning the command module, columbia, and its attached service module around and then extracting the lunar module from its resting place above the saturn’s third stage. on their arrival the astronauts slowed the spacecraft so that it would go into lunar orbit. apollo 11 entered first an elliptical orbit 114 by 313 km (71 by 194 miles) and then a nearly circular orbit between 100 and 122 km (62 and 76 miles) above the surface of the moon. on the morning of july 20, armstrong and aldrin crawled from the command module through an interconnecting tunnel into the lunar module, eagle. toward the end of the 12th lunar orbit, the apollo 11 spacecraft became two separate spacecraft: columbia, piloted by collins, and eagle, occupied by armstrong and aldrin. by firing eagle’s propulsion system, the two astronauts changed from their nearly circular orbit to an elliptical course whose closest approach to the moon was only 15,000 metres (50,000 feet). at this low point they again fired their engine, this time to undergo the powered descent initiation maneuver. five times during the descent, the guidance computer triggered an alarm (called “1202” or “1201”) that its memory was full, but nasa simulations before the mission showed that a landing could still happen despite the alarm, and thus mission control told the astronauts to continue the descent. at about 150 metres (500 feet) above the surface, armstrong began maneuvering the craft manually (although the main engine continued under automatic control) to avoid landing in a rock strewn crater. for about a minute and a half, armstrong hovered eagle, moving it laterally with the reaction control system until he found a clear area on which to descend. then the contact light went on inside the cockpit, as the 172 cm (68 inch) probes dangling below eagle’s footpads signaled contact with the ground. one second later the descent rocket engine was cut off, as the astronauts gazed down onto a sheet of lunar soil blown radially in all directions. armstrong then radioed at 4:17 pm u.s. eastern daylight time (edt), “houston, tranquility base here. the eagle has landed.” eagle had touched down in the sea of tranquility, an area selected for its level and smooth terrain. at 10:56 pm edt on july 20, armstrong stepped out onto the lunar soil with the words, “that’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” (in the excitement of the moment, armstrong skipped the “a” in the statement that he had prepared.) he immediately described the surface as “fine and powdery” and said that there was no difficulty moving about. aldrin joined his companion about 20 minutes later. during their moon walk of more than two hours, armstrong and aldrin set up a device to measure the composition of the solar wind reaching the moon, a device to receive laser beams from astronomical observatories on earth to determine the exact distance of the two bodies from one another, and a passive seismometer to measure moonquakes and meteor impacts long after the astronauts had returned home. they also took about 23 kg (50 pounds) of rock and soil samples, took many photographs, and maintained constant communication with mission control in houston, texas. after 21 hours 38 minutes on the moon’s surface, the astronauts used eagle’s ascent stage to launch it back into lunar orbit. after various maneuvers, eagle once again docked with collins in columbia, and the trip back to earth began soon afterward. splashdown of apollo 11 occurred in the pacific ocean about 1,400 km (900 miles) west of hawaii on july 24. the astronauts were immediately placed in quarantine in a van on the recovery ship. from there they were flown to the manned spacecraft center in houston, where they were transferred into the large, 58 room lunar receiving laboratory. the quarantine lasted 21 days from the time eagle took off from the moon; during that period the astronauts were checked for any diseases they might have picked up on the moon, and the lunar samples were subjected to preliminary analysis. columbia is part of the collections of the national air and space museum in washington, d.c.

visit us in washington, dc and chantilly, va to explore hundreds of the world’s most significant objects in aviation and space history. free timed entry passes are required for the museum in dc. discover our exhibitions and participate in programs both in person or virtually. browse our collections, stories, research, and on demand content. bring the air and space museum to your learners, wherever you are. your support will help fund exhibitions, educational programming, and preservation efforts. on july 20, 1969, a human walked on the moon for the first time. relive the full journey to and from the the moon with the timeline below. july 16, 196913:32:00 utc (universal coordinated time)9:32 am et (eastern time) liftoff! the apollo 11 spacecraft launched from cape kennedy. over a million spectators, including vice president spiro agnew and former president lyndon johnson, have come to watch the lift off. from launch to landing, armstrong, aldrin, and collins were on a three day journey to the moon. one thing that was not widely publicized during the apollo program was that the astronauts carried music with them into space. according to most accounts, the astronauts of gemini and apollo listened mainly to adult contemporary and country music. neil armstrong’s musical tastes were a bit more complex than his colleagues. he chose to bring something spacey onboard his space capsule: theremin music. july 20, 196917:44 utc1:44 pm et the lunar module with armstrong and aldrin aboard was undocked from the command module. at 101:36 get, the descent to the surface of the moon began. michael collins stayed aboard the command module columbia, serving as a communications link and photographing the lunar surface. more about collins's journey to the far side of the moon july 20, 196920:17 utc4:17 pm et the eagle has landed! the lunar module touched down on the surface on the moon. july 21, 19692:51 utc july 20, 196910:51 pm et neil armstrong begins his descent from the lunar module and takes humankind’s first steps on the moon, followed by buzz aldrin. july 20, 19692:56 utc july 21, 196910:56 pm et that's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. on the moon, the astronauts carried out a planned series of experiments. approximately two hours and fifteen minutes later, the astronauts prepared to reenter the lunar module. about the experiments july 21, 196917:54 utc1:54 pm et the ascent from the lunar surface began. at 21:35 utc (5:35 pm et) lunar module would rendezvous with the command and service modules, where michael collins would welcome back aldrin and armstrong. at 23:41 utc (9:41 pm et) lunar module eagle was jettisoned into lunar orbit. what we left behind july 22, 19694:55 utc11:55 pm et apollo 11 left lunar orbit to return to earth. july 24, 19694:51 utc12:51 pm et splashdown! the astronauts returned to earth. in case the moon had any traces of biological pathogens, the astronauts had to stay in quarantine for 21 days. after 21 days in quarantine the united states celebrated the returning heroes in the time honored tradition reserved for such occasions: parades. the astronauts were lauded at parades across the nation, from new york, to chicago, to their hometowns, and eventually partook in a world tour. more about welcoming the astronauts home the family that knocked on neil armstrong's door

closed quarters, vehicles faster than the speed of sound, zero gravity, and extremely volatile rockets. do any of these things sound particularly prone to accidents? space travel is tricky work that takes careful calculations and even more careful actions when situations get tough. here is a list of seven accidents and disasters that have occurred during space expeditions. luca parmitano, an italian astronaut with the european space agency, took on a bit of water as he was working outside of the international space station (iss) on july 16, 2013. during a spacewalk on the 36th expedition to the iss, parmitano’s helmet began to unexpectedly fill with liquid, and, being in space, the water was free to float around his entire head, eventually making it impossible for him to hear or speak to the other astronauts. though it might seem like the solution to parmitano’s problem was obvious, alas, the water was not from a drinking bag but from a leak in a liquid coolant system and would not have been the safest thing to drink. plus, imagine drinking water that is floating freely in the air doesn’t seem so easy. the spacewalk continued for over an hour before he was back in the iss and free from his wetsuit, completely unharmed but in need of a fresh towel (which he received promptly). the accident and subsequent cancellation of the spacewalk made it the second shortest spacewalk in the station’s history. the space shuttle challenger disaster that occurred on january 28, 1986, marked one of the most devastating days in the history of space exploration. just over a minute after the space shuttle lifted off, a malfunction in the spacecraft’s o rings rubber seals that separated its rocket boosters caused a fire to start that destabilized the boosters and spread up the rocket itself. the shuttle was moving faster than the speed of sound and quickly began to break apart. the disaster led to the deaths of all astronauts on board, including civilian christa mcauliffe, a participant in nasa’s teacher in space project who was to teach classes and perform experiments while in space. the extended mission of the shuttle included deployment of satellites and the test of tools for studying astronomy and halley’s comet. the shuttle’s launch was not widely televised, but the explosion and breakup of the shuttle was visible to spectators on the ground. the launch itself, performed in 26 °f (−3 °c) weather, was predicted to encounter issues by members of the engineering team who knew of the dangers posed to o rings by such low temperatures. despite vocalizing these concerns, the mission continued as planned because nasa was against delaying the shuttle’s launch any more, as it had already been delayed multiple times. the disaster resulted in the temporary suspension of the space shuttle program and the creation of the rogers commission to determine the cause and fault of the disaster. the second manned lunar expedition, a feat astronaut charles conrad called, “a small step for neil [armstrong], but…a long one for me,” was not without a few mishaps. as apollo 12 was beginning to lift off on november 14, 1969, the top of the shuttle was hit by two different lightning strikes that had the potential to compromise the spacecraft and the mission. the first strike was even visible to the spectating audience, creating a stir and concern about the safety of the mission. but despite the scare, it was determined in a quick check of all the spacecraft’s systems that no damage was done to the vehicle, and it set off to the moon just as planned. it was the return to earth that caused a little more trouble. as the spacecraft “splashed down” in the ocean during its return to earth, a strong wave hit the body of the craft, causing it to jostle and swing from its parachutes. this force toppled a 16 mm film camera from where it was secured into astronaut alan bean’s head, causing a 1 inch (2.5 cm) cut. bean turned out a ok though, as conrad quickly served as medic and bandaged the wound. vladimir komarov was one of soviet russia’s first group of cosmonauts selected to attempt space travel. he was also the first person to enter outer space twice, though his second time would sadly be his last. during the expedition of soyuz 1, the soviets’ first space vehicle intended to eventually reach the moon, komarov encountered issues with the design of his spacecraft that led to his death. the mission plan for soyuz 1 was a difficult one: the spacecraft was to orbit earth and then have a rendezvous with soyuz 2. the two vehicles would have precisely matched their orbital velocities to test the first step in docking two spacecraft together. after komarov was in orbit around earth and it was time for soyuz 2 to launch and meet him, problems with the spacecraft that had been largely ignored became apparent, and the soyuz 2 mission was halted. the mission control was able to determine that one of the solar panels on soyuz 1 had not deployed and was limiting the power to the spacecraft dramatically. equipment that needed the power from this solar panel was malfunctioning, creating difficulties in controlling the vehicle. it was decided that the mission could not continue, and komarov began preparing for his return to earth. after some trouble breaching the atmosphere, the parachutes on soyuz 1 were deployed but did not unfold correctly, making the spacecraft impossible to slow down. soyuz 1 crashed into earth on april 24, 1967, killing cosmonaut vladimir komarov. komarov was the first fatality in spaceflight and, since his death, has been honored with memorials and monuments near the site of the crash and in russia for his bravery and skill. space explorers need to stay in good physical health during their time in outer space. because of this necessity, space stations have exercise equipment that astronauts or cosmonauts can use to stay fit. during a mission to the mir space station in 1995, astronaut norman thagard was attempting to do just that with a piece of exercise equipment for performing deep knee bends. the equipment used a strap of elastic that is secured to a foot in order to create resistance. while thagard was exercising, one of the straps snapped off of his foot and flew upward, hitting him in the eye. after the initial shock of the injury, thagard was in pain and had trouble looking at light (something hard to avoid in outer space). after being prescribed steroid eye drops, which apparently the space station had readily available, thagard’s eye began to heal and all was back to normal. the disintegration of the space shuttle columbia on february 1, 2003, as it reentered the atmosphere was another of the most traumatic accidents in the history of space expedition. the columbia disaster was the second that occurred during nasa’s space shuttle program after the challenger, also causing widespread sadness and concerns about the space programs. the accident was caused during liftoff by the breaking off of a piece of foam that was intended to absorb and insulate the fuel tank of the shuttle from heat and to stop ice from forming. the large piece of foam fell on the shuttle’s left wing and created a hole. though nasa officials were aware of the damage, the severity of it was unclear because of the low quality cameras used to observe the shuttle’s launch. knowing that the foam regularly had fallen off of previous shuttles and had not caused critical damage, nasa officials believed there was nothing to worry about. but when the columbia attempted reentry after its mission was complete, gases and smoke entered the left wing through the hole and caused the wing to break off, leading to the disintegration of the rest of the shuttle seven minutes from landing. the entire crew of six american astronauts and the first israeli astronaut in space died in the accident. nasa’s space shuttle program was again suspended after this disaster. despite the tragedy, an experiment performed during the expedition that studied the effects of weightlessness on the physiology of worms was recovered from the wreckage. the worms, left in a petri dish, were still alive, a symbol of the dedication of the columbia crew and a monument to their efforts. the apollo soyuz test project in july 1975 was a feat of both space travel and politics: it was the first joint u.s. and soviet spaceflight and marked the end of the space race between the two countries. bottle up all of the tension between these two superpowers, and there’s bound to be some mishap. surprisingly, the mission itself went over almost flawlessly (until their returns). the two spacecraft the american holding three astronauts and the soviet two cosmonauts met in orbit around the earth and docked to each other, allowing the space explorers to travel between the vehicles. they exchanged pleasantries and gifts and executed some experiments, each group speaking in the other’s native language to smooth communication and blur the barriers between the two countries. after 44 hours they parted and, after a few more days, the two spacecraft began their descents to earth. it was during reentry that a malfunction with the rcs, the reaction control system that controls altitude, caused poisonous nitrogen tetroxide to enter the cabin where the american apollo astronauts were seated. luckily, the cabin was ventilated once the spacecraft landed and none of the astronauts were fatally injured. they were rushed to a hospital and were found to have developed a form of chemically caused pneumonia, but all recovered within weeks.
by kenneth chang in late 2019, boeing appeared to have a good chance at beating spacex to become the first private u.s. company to take astronauts to orbit. but in the four and a half years since, a lot has gone wrong. here’s a timeline of the setbacks that have caused boeing to fall so far behind spacex in providing american astronauts a ride to low earth orbit. on dec. 20, 2019, boeing looked to be in the homestretch. a starliner capsule   the same spacecraft that is to take the nasa astronauts butch wilmore and suni williams to the space station on saturday   was on the launchpad atop an atlas v rocket. the test flight to the space station had no astronauts on board, and its mission was to assess the spacecraft’s navigation, propulsion and docking systems. if the flight were to pass this last technical hurdle, a trip with astronauts aboard could take place within months. the atlas v rocket launched flawlessly, releasing starliner. and then the mission immediately went awry. the spacecraft’s clock was set to the wrong time, making starliner think it was in the wrong location. the capsule fired its thrusters to try to get to where it thought it should be. at the same time, a communications glitch thwarted efforts by flight controllers at mission control to diagnose and fix the problem.

 for the first time since 2011, nasa astronauts will once again return to space from u.s. soil. veteran astronauts robert behnken and douglas hurley will rendezvous with the international space station after they lift off may 27, 2020, from the kennedy space center in merritt island, florida. to get there, they'll ride a crew dragon spacecraft propelled into orbit by a falcon 9 rocket, both designed and manufactured by spacex, the organization founded in 2002 by entrepreneur elon musk. if all goes well, this mission will make spacex the first private company to put astronauts into space. news of the flight was broken in april by nasa administrator jim bridenstine. during a series of virtual press conferences held friday, may 1, bridenstine   and other key figures representing both nasa and spacex   spoke about the crew dragon's unprecedented task. "this is a high priority mission for the united states of america," bridenstine told the media. "we as a nation have not had our own access to the international space station for nine years.