“Space Shuttle”的意思、由来-开放百科全书

The Space Shuttle was a partially reusable low Earth orbital spacecraft system operated by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as part of the Space Shuttle program. Its official program name was Space Transportation System (STS), taken from a 1969 plan for a system of reusable spacecraft of which it was the only item funded for development.^[10] The first of four orbital test flights occurred in 1981, leading to operational flights beginning in 1982. In addition to the prototype whose completion was cancelled, five complete Shuttle systems were built and used on a total of 135 missions from 1981 to 2011, launched from the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. Operational missions launched numerous satellites, interplanetary probes, and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST); conducted science experiments in orbit; and participated in construction and servicing of the International Space Station. The Shuttle fleet's total mission time was 1322 days, 19 hours, 21 minutes and 23 seconds.^[11]

Shuttle components included the Orbiter Vehicle (OV) with three clustered Rocketdyne RS-25 main engines, a pair of recoverable solid rocket boosters (SRBs), and the expendable external tank (ET) containing liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The Space Shuttle was launched vertically, like a conventional rocket, with the two SRBs operating in parallel with the OV's three main engines, which were fueled from the ET. The SRBs were jettisoned before the vehicle reached orbit, and the ET was jettisoned just before orbit insertion, which used the orbiter's two Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines. At the conclusion of the mission, the orbiter fired its OMS to de-orbit and re-enter the atmosphere. The orbiter then glided as a spaceplane to a runway landing, usually to the Shuttle Landing Facility at Kennedy Space Center, Florida or Rogers Dry Lake in Edwards Air Force Base, California. After landing at Edwards, the orbiter was flown back to the KSC on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, a specially modified Boeing 747.

The first orbiter, Enterprise, was built in 1976, used in Approach and Landing Tests and had no orbital capability. Four fully operational orbiters were initially built: Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, and Atlantis. Of these, two were lost in mission accidents: Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003, with a total of fourteen astronauts killed. A fifth operational (and sixth in total) orbiter, Endeavour, was built in 1991 to replace Challenger. The Space Shuttle was retired from service upon the conclusion of Atlantis{{'}}s final flight on July 21, 2011. The U.S. has since relied on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to transport astronauts to the International Space Station, pending the Commercial Crew Development and Space Launch System programs on schedule for first flights in 2019 and 2020.

Overview

The Space Shuttle was a partially reusable^[12] human spaceflight vehicle capable of reaching low Earth orbit, commissioned and operated by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) from 1981 to 2011. It resulted from shuttle design studies conducted by NASA and the U.S. Air Force in the 1960s and was first proposed for development as part of an ambitious second-generation Space Transportation System (STS) of space vehicles to follow the Apollo program in a September 1969 report of a Space Task Group headed by Vice President Spiro Agnew to President Richard Nixon. Nixon's post-Apollo NASA budgeting withdrew support of all system components except the Shuttle, to which NASA applied the STS name.^[10]

The vehicle consisted of a spaceplane for orbit and re-entry, fueled from an expendable External Tank containing liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, with two reusable strap-on solid rocket boosters. The first of four orbital test flights occurred in 1981, leading to operational flights beginning in 1982, all launched from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The system was retired from service in 2011 after 135 missions,^[13] with Atlantis making the final launch of the three-decade Shuttle program on July 8, 2011.^[14] The program ended after Atlantis landed at the Kennedy Space Center on July 21, 2011. Major missions included launching numerous satellites and interplanetary probes,^[15] conducting space science experiments, and servicing and construction of space stations. The first orbiter vehicle, named Enterprise, was used in the initial Approach and Landing Tests phase but installation of engines, heat shielding, and other equipment necessary for orbital flight was cancelled.^[16] A total of five operational orbiters were built, and of these, two were destroyed in accidents.

It was used for orbital space missions by NASA, the U.S. Department of Defense, the European Space Agency, Japan, and Germany.^[20]^[21] The United States funded Shuttle development and operations except for the Spacelab modules used on D1 and D2{{mdash}}sponsored by Germany.^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21] SL-J was partially funded by Japan.^[22]

At launch, it consisted of the "stack", including the dark orange external tank (ET) (for the first two launches the tank was painted white);^[23]^[24] two white, slender solid rocket boosters (SRBs); and the Orbiter Vehicle, which contained the crew and payload. Some payloads were launched into higher orbits with either of two different upper stages developed for the STS (single-stage Payload Assist Module or two-stage Inertial Upper Stage). The Space Shuttle was stacked in the Vehicle Assembly Building, and the stack mounted on a mobile launch platform held down by four frangible nuts^[25] on each SRB, which were detonated at launch.^[26]

The Shuttle stack launched vertically like a conventional rocket. It lifted off under the power of its two SRBs and three main engines, which were fueled by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen from the ET. The Space Shuttle had a two-stage ascent. The SRBs provided additional thrust during liftoff and first-stage flight. About two minutes after liftoff, frangible nuts were fired, releasing the SRBs, which then parachuted into the ocean, to be retrieved by NASA recovery ships for refurbishment and reuse. The orbiter and ET continued to ascend on an increasingly horizontal flight path under power from its main engines. Upon reaching 17,500 mph (7.8 km/s), necessary for low Earth orbit, the main engines were shut down. The ET, attached by two frangible nuts^[27] was then jettisoned to burn up in the atmosphere.^[33] After jettisoning the external tank, the orbital maneuvering system (OMS) engines were used to adjust the orbit.

The orbiter carried astronauts and payloads such as satellites or space station parts into low Earth orbit, the Earth's upper atmosphere or thermosphere.^[28] Usually, five to seven crew members rode in the orbiter. Two crew members, the commander and pilot, were sufficient for a minimal flight, as in the first four "test" flights, STS-1 through STS-4. The typical payload capacity was about {{convert|50045|lb|kg|sigfig=3|sp=us}} but could be increased depending on the choice of launch configuration. The orbiter carried its payload in a large cargo bay with doors that opened along the length of its top, a feature which made the Space Shuttle unique among spacecraft. This feature made possible the deployment of large satellites such as the Hubble Space Telescope and also the capture and return of large payloads back to Earth.

When the orbiter's space mission was complete, it fired its OMS thrusters to drop out of orbit and re-enter the lower atmosphere.^[28] During descent, the orbiter passed through different layers of the atmosphere and decelerated from hypersonic speed primarily by aerobraking. In the lower atmosphere and landing phase, it was more like a glider but with reaction control system (RCS) thrusters and fly-by-wire-controlled hydraulically actuated flight surfaces controlling its descent. It landed on a long runway as a conventional aircraft. The aerodynamic shape was a compromise between the demands of radically different speeds and air pressures during re-entry, hypersonic flight, and subsonic atmospheric flight. As a result, the orbiter had a relatively high sink rate at low altitudes, and it transitioned during re-entry from using RCS thrusters at very high altitudes to flight surfaces in the lower atmosphere.

Early history

The formal design of what became the Space Shuttle began with the "Phase A" contract design studies issued in the late 1960s. Conceptualization had begun two decades earlier, before the Apollo program of the 1960s. One of the places the concept of a spacecraft returning from space to a horizontal landing originated was within NACA, in 1954, in the form of an aeronautics research experiment later named the X-15. The NACA proposal was submitted by Walter Dornberger.

In 1958, the X-15 concept further developed into a proposal to launch an X-15 into space, and another X-series spaceplane proposal, named X-20 Dyna-Soar, as well as variety of aerospace plane concepts and studies. Neil Armstrong was selected to pilot both the X-15 and the X-20. Though the X-20 was not built, another spaceplane similar to the X-20 was built several years later and delivered to NASA in January 1966 called the HL-10 ("HL" indicated "horizontal landing").

In the mid-1960s, the U.S. Air Force conducted classified studies on next-generation space transportation systems and concluded that semi-reusable designs were the cheapest choice. It proposed a development program with an immediate start on a "Class I" vehicle with expendable boosters, followed by slower development of a "Class II" semi-reusable design and possible "Class III" fully reusable design later. In 1967, George Mueller held a one-day symposium at NASA headquarters to study the options. Eighty people attended and presented a wide variety of designs, including earlier U.S. Air Force designs such as the X-20 Dyna-Soar.

In 1968, NASA officially began work on what was then known as the Integrated Launch and Re-entry Vehicle (ILRV). At the same time, NASA held a separate Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) competition. NASA offices in Houston and Huntsville jointly issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for ILRV studies to design a spacecraft that could deliver a payload to orbit but also re-enter the atmosphere and fly back to Earth. For example, one of the responses was for a two-stage design, featuring a large booster and a small orbiter, called the DC-3, one of several Phase A Shuttle designs. After the aforementioned "Phase A" studies, B, C, and D phases progressively evaluated in-depth designs up to 1972. In the final design, the bottom stage consisted of recoverable solid rocket boosters, and the top stage used an expendable external tank.^[29]

In 1969, President Richard Nixon decided to support proceeding with Space Shuttle development. A series of development programs and analysis refined the basic design, prior to full development and testing. In August 1973, the X-24B proved that an unpowered spaceplane could re-enter Earth's atmosphere for a horizontal landing.

Across the Atlantic, European ministers met in Belgium in 1973 to authorize Western Europe's manned orbital project and its main contribution to Space Shuttle{{mdash}}the Spacelab program.^[37] Spacelab would provide a multidisciplinary orbital space laboratory and additional space equipment for the Shuttle.^[37]

Description

The Space Shuttle was the first operational orbital spacecraft designed for reuse. It carried different payloads to low Earth orbit, provided crew rotation and supplies for the International Space Station (ISS), and performed satellite servicing and repair. The orbiter could also recover satellites and other payloads from orbit and return them to Earth. Each Shuttle was designed for a projected lifespan of 100 launches or ten years of operational life, although this was later extended. The person in charge of designing the STS was Maxime Faget, who had also overseen the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo spacecraft designs. The crucial factor in the size and shape of the Shuttle orbiter was the requirement that it be able to accommodate the largest planned commercial and military satellites, and have over 1,000 mile cross-range recovery range to meet the requirement for classified USAF missions for a once-around abort from a launch to a polar orbit. The militarily specified {{convert|1,085|nmi|abbr=on}} cross range requirement was one of the primary reasons for the Shuttle's large wings, compared to modern commercial designs with very minimal control surfaces and glide capability. Factors involved in opting for solid rockets and an expendable fuel tank included the desire of the Pentagon to obtain a high-capacity payload vehicle for satellite deployment, and the desire of the Nixon administration to reduce the costs of space exploration by developing a spacecraft with reusable components.

Each Space Shuttle was a reusable launch system composed of three main assemblies: the reusable OV, the expendable ET, and the two reusable SRBs.^[30] Only the OV entered orbit shortly after the tank and boosters are jettisoned. The vehicle was launched vertically like a conventional rocket, and the orbiter glided to a horizontal landing like an airplane, after which it was refurbished for reuse. The SRBs parachuted to splashdown in the ocean where they were towed back to shore and refurbished for later Shuttle missions.

Five operational OVs were built: Columbia (OV-102), Challenger (OV-099), Discovery (OV-103), Atlantis (OV-104), and Endeavour (OV-105). A mock-up, Inspiration, currently stands at the entrance to the Astronaut Hall of Fame. An additional craft, Enterprise (OV-101), was built for atmospheric testing gliding and landing; it was originally intended to be outfitted for orbital operations after the test program, but it was found more economical to upgrade the structural test article STA-099 into orbiter Challenger (OV-099). An additional test article, dubbed Pathfinder (OV-098), was built for form and fit tests, and is on display at the Alabama Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL. Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds after launch in 1986, and Endeavour was built as a replacement from structural spare components. Building Endeavour cost about US$1.7 billion. Columbia broke apart over Texas during re-entry in 2003.

A Space Shuttle launch cost around $450 million.^[31] Roger A. Pielke, Jr. has estimated that the Space Shuttle program cost about US$170 billion (2008 dollars) through early 2008; the average cost per flight was about US$1.5 billion.^[32] Two missions were paid for by Germany, Spacelab D1 and D2 (D for Deutschland) with a payload control center in Oberpfaffenhofen.^[33]^[34] D1 was the first time that control of a manned STS mission payload was not in U.S. hands.^[17]

At times, the orbiter itself was referred to as the Space Shuttle. This was not technically correct as the Space Shuttle was the combination of the orbiter, the external tank, and the two solid rocket boosters. These components, once assembled in the Vehicle Assembly Building originally built to assemble the Apollo Saturn V rocket, were commonly referred to as the "stack".^[35]

Responsibility for the Shuttle components was spread among multiple NASA field centers. The Kennedy Space Center was responsible for launch, landing and turnaround operations for equatorial orbits (the only orbit profile actually used in the program), the U.S. Air Force at the Vandenberg Air Force Base was responsible for launch, landing and turnaround operations for polar orbits (though this was never used), the Johnson Space Center served as the central point for all Shuttle operations, the Marshall Space Flight Center was responsible for the main engines, external tank, and solid rocket boosters, the John C. Stennis Space Center handled main engine testing, and the Goddard Space Flight Center managed the global tracking network.^[36]

Orbiter vehicle

The orbiter resembled a conventional aircraft, with double-delta wings swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Its vertical stabilizer's leading edge was swept back at a 50° angle. The four elevons, mounted at the trailing edge of the wings, and the rudder/speed brake, attached at the trailing edge of the stabilizer, with the body flap, controlled the orbiter during descent and landing.

The orbiter's {{convert|60|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|adj=on}}-long payload bay, comprising most of the fuselage, could accommodate cylindrical payloads up to {{convert|15|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us}} in diameter. Information declassified in 2011 showed that these measurements were chosen specifically to accommodate the KH-9 HEXAGON spy satellite operated by the National Reconnaissance Office.^[37] Two mostly-symmetrical lengthwise payload bay doors hinged on either side of the bay comprised its entire top. Payloads were generally loaded horizontally into the bay while the orbiter was standing upright on the launch pad and unloaded vertically in the near-weightless orbital environment by the orbiter's robotic remote manipulator arm (under astronaut control), EVA astronauts, or under the payloads' own power (as for satellites attached to a rocket "upper stage" for deployment.)

Three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) were mounted on the orbiter's aft fuselage in a triangular pattern. The engine nozzles could gimbal 10.5 degrees up and down, and 8.5 degrees from side to side during ascent to change the direction of their thrust to steer the Shuttle. The orbiter structure was made primarily from aluminum alloy, although the engine structure was made primarily from titanium alloy.

The operational orbiters built were OV-102 Columbia, OV-099 Challenger, OV-103 Discovery, OV-104 Atlantis, and OV-105 Endeavour.^[38]

External tank

The main function of the Space Shuttle external tank was to supply the liquid oxygen and hydrogen fuel to the main engines. It was also the backbone of the launch vehicle, providing attachment points for the two solid rocket boosters and the orbiter. The external tank was the only part of the Shuttle system that was not reused. Although the external tanks were always discarded, it would have been possible to take them into orbit and re-use them (such as a wet workshop for incorporation into a space station).^[40]^[41]

Solid rocket boosters

Two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) each provided {{convert|2800000|lbf|kN|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=3}} of thrust at liftoff,^[42] which was 83% of the total thrust at liftoff. The SRBs were jettisoned two minutes after launch at a height of about {{convert|150000|ft|km|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}}, and then deployed parachutes and landed in the ocean to be recovered.^[43] The SRB cases were made of steel about ½ inch (13 mm) thick.^[44] The solid rocket boosters were re-used many times; the casing used in Ares I engine testing in 2009 consisted of motor cases that had been flown, collectively, on 48 Shuttle missions, including STS-1.^[45]

Astronauts who have flown on multiple spacecraft report that Shuttle delivers a rougher ride than Apollo or Soyuz.^[46]^[47] The additional vibration is caused by the solid rocket boosters, as solid fuel does not burn as evenly as liquid fuel. The vibration dampens down after the solid rocket boosters have been jettisoned.^[48]^[49]

Orbiter cargo bay add-ons

The orbiter could be used in conjunction with a variety of add-on components depending on the mission. This included orbital laboratories (Spacelab, Spacehab), boosters for launching payloads farther into space (Inertial Upper Stage, Payload Assist Module), and other functions, such as provided by Extended Duration Orbiter, Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules, or Canadarm (RMS). An upper stage called Transfer Orbit Stage (Orbital Science Corp. TOS-21) was also used once with the orbiter.^[50] Other types of systems and racks were part of the modular Spacelab system {{mdash}}pallets, igloo, IPS, etc., which also supported special missions such as SRTM.^[51]

Spacelab

A major component of the Space Shuttle Program was Spacelab, primarily contributed by a consortium of European countries, and operated in conjunction with the United States and international partners.^[51] Supported by a modular system of pressurized modules, pallets, and systems, Spacelab missions executed on multidisciplinary science, orbital logistics, and international cooperation.^[51] Over 29 missions flew on subjects ranging from astronomy, microgravity, radar, and life sciences, to name a few.^[51] Spacelab hardware also supported missions such as Hubble (HST) servicing and space station resupply.^[51] STS-2 and STS-3 provided testing, and the first full mission was Spacelab-1 (STS-9) launched on November 28, 1983.^[51]

Spacelab formally began in 1973, after a meeting in Brussels, Belgium, by European heads of state.^[52] Within the decade, Spacelab went into orbit and provided Europe and the United States with an orbital workshop and hardware system.^[52] International cooperation, science, and exploration were realized on Spacelab.^[51]

Flight systems

The Shuttle was one of the earliest craft to use a computerized fly-by-wire digital flight control system. This means no mechanical or hydraulic linkages connected the pilot's control stick to the control surfaces or reaction control system thrusters. The control algorithm, which used a classical Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) approach, was developed and maintained by Honeywell.{{Citation needed |date=November 2013}} The Shuttle's fly-by-wire digital flight control system was composed of 4 control systems each addressing a different mission phase: Ascent, Descent, On-Orbit and Aborts.{{Citation needed |date=November 2013}} Honeywell is also credited with the design and implementation of the Shuttle's Nose Wheel Steering Control Algorithm that allowed the Orbiter to safely land at Kennedy Space Center's Shuttle Runway.{{Citation needed |date=November 2013}}

A concern with using digital fly-by-wire systems on the Shuttle was reliability. Considerable research went into the Shuttle computer system. The Shuttle used five identical redundant IBM 32-bit general purpose computers (GPCs), model AP-101, constituting a type of embedded system. Four computers ran specialized software called the Primary Avionics Software System (PASS). A fifth backup computer ran separate software called the Backup Flight System (BFS). Collectively they were called the Data Processing System (DPS).^[53]^[54]

The design goal of the Shuttle's DPS was fail-operational/fail-safe reliability. After a single failure, the Shuttle could still continue the mission. After two failures, it could still land safely.

The four general-purpose computers operated essentially in lockstep, checking each other. If one computer provided a different result than the other three (i.e. the one computer failed), the three functioning computers "voted" it out of the system. This isolated it from vehicle control. If a second computer of the three remaining failed, the two functioning computers voted it out. A very unlikely failure mode would have been where two of the computers produced result A, and two produced result B (a two-two split). In this unlikely case, one group of two was to be picked at random.

The Backup Flight System (BFS) was separately developed software running on the fifth computer, used only if the entire four-computer primary system failed. The BFS was created because although the four primary computers were hardware redundant, they all ran the same software, so a generic software problem could crash all of them. Embedded system avionic software was developed under totally different conditions from public commercial software: the number of code lines was tiny compared to a public commercial software product, changes were only made infrequently and with extensive testing, and many programming and test personnel worked on the small amount of computer code. However, in theory it could have still failed, and the BFS existed for that contingency. While the BFS could run in parallel with PASS, the BFS never engaged to take over control from PASS during any Shuttle mission.

The software for the Shuttle computers was written in a high-level language called HAL/S, somewhat similar to PL/I. It is specifically designed for a real time embedded system environment.

The IBM AP-101 computers originally had about 424 kilobytes of magnetic core memory each. The CPU could process about 400,000 instructions per second. They had no hard disk drive, and loaded software from magnetic tape cartridges.

In 1990, the original computers were replaced with an upgraded model AP-101S, which had about 2.5 times the memory capacity (about 1 megabyte) and three times the processor speed (about 1.2 million instructions per second). The memory was changed from magnetic core to semiconductor with battery backup.

Early Shuttle missions, starting in November 1983, took along the Grid Compass, arguably one of the first laptop computers. The GRiD was given the name SPOC, for Shuttle Portable Onboard Computer. Use on the Shuttle required both hardware and software modifications which were incorporated into later versions of the commercial product. It was used to monitor and display the Shuttle's ground position, path of the next two orbits, show where the Shuttle had line of sight communications with ground stations, and determine points for location-specific observations of the Earth. The Compass sold poorly, as it cost at least US$8000, but it offered unmatched performance for its weight and size.^[55] NASA was one of its main customers.^[56]

During its service life, the Shuttle's Control System never experienced a failure. Many of the lessons learned have been used to design today's high speed control algorithms.^[57]

Orbiter markings and insignia

The prototype orbiter Enterprise originally had a flag of the United States on the upper surface of the left wing and the letters "USA" in black on the right wing. The name "Enterprise" was painted in black on the payload bay doors just above the hinge and behind the crew module; on the aft end of the payload bay doors was the NASA "worm" logotype in gray. Underneath the rear of the payload bay doors on the side of the fuselage just above the wing is the text "United States" in black with a flag of the United States ahead of it.

The first operational orbiter, Columbia, originally had the same markings as Enterprise, although the letters "USA" on the right wing were slightly larger and spaced farther apart. Columbia also had black markings which Enterprise lacked on its forward RCS module, around the cockpit windows, and on its vertical stabilizer, and had distinctive black chines on the forward part of its upper wing surfaces, which none of the other orbiters had.

Challenger established a modified marking scheme for the shuttle fleet that was matched by Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour. The letters "USA" in black above an American flag were displayed on the left wing, with the NASA "worm" logotype in gray centered above the name of the orbiter in black on the right wing. The name of the orbiter was inscribed not on the payload bay doors, but on the forward fuselage just below and behind the cockpit windows. This would make the name visible when the shuttle was photographed in orbit with the doors open.

In 1983, Enterprise had its wing markings changed to match Challenger, and the NASA "worm" logotype on the aft end of the payload bay doors was changed from gray to black. Some black markings were added to the nose, cockpit windows and vertical tail to more closely resemble the flight vehicles, but the name "Enterprise" remained on the payload bay doors as there was never any need to open them. Columbia had its name moved to the forward fuselage to match the other flight vehicles after STS-61-C, during the 1986–88 hiatus when the shuttle fleet was grounded following the loss of Challenger, but retained its original wing markings until its last overhaul (after STS-93), and its unique black chines for the remainder of its operational life.

Beginning in 1998, the flight vehicles' markings were modified to incorporate the NASA "meatball" insignia. The "worm" logotype, which the agency had phased out, was removed from the payload bay doors and the "meatball" insignia was added aft of the "United States" text on the lower aft fuselage. The "meatball" insignia was also displayed on the left wing, with the American flag above the orbiter's name, left-justified rather than centered, on the right wing. The three surviving flight vehicles, Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour, still bear these markings as museum displays. Enterprise became the property of the Smithsonian Institution in 1985 and was no longer under NASA's control when these changes were made, hence the prototype orbiter still has its 1983 markings and still has its name on the payload bay doors.

Upgrades

The Space Shuttle was initially developed in the 1970s,^[58] but received many upgrades and modifications afterward to improve performance, reliability and safety. Internally, the Shuttle remained largely similar to the original design, with the exception of the improved avionics computers. In addition to the computer upgrades, the original analog primary flight instruments were replaced with modern full-color, flat-panel display screens, called a glass cockpit, which is similar to those of contemporary airliners. To facilitate construction of ISS, the internal airlocks of each orbiter except Columbia^[59] were replaced with external docking systems to allow for a greater amount of cargo to be stored on the Shuttle's mid-deck during station resupply missions.

The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) had several improvements to enhance reliability and power. This explains phrases such as "Main engines throttling up to 104 percent." This did not mean the engines were being run over a safe limit. The 100 percent figure was the original specified power level. During the lengthy development program, Rocketdyne determined the engine was capable of safe reliable operation at 104 percent of the originally specified thrust. NASA could have rescaled the output number, saying in essence 104 percent is now 100 percent. To clarify this would have required revising much previous documentation and software, so the 104 percent number was retained. SSME upgrades were denoted as "block numbers", such as block I, block II, and block IIA. The upgrades improved engine reliability, maintainability and performance. The 109% thrust level was finally reached in flight hardware with the Block II engines in 2001. The normal maximum throttle was 104 percent, with 106 percent or 109 percent used for mission aborts.

For the first two missions, STS-1 and STS-2, the external tank was painted white to protect the insulation that covers much of the tank, but improvements and testing showed that it was not required. The weight saved by not painting the tank resulted in an increase in payload capability to orbit.^[60] Additional weight was saved by removing some of the internal "stringers" in the hydrogen tank that proved unnecessary. The resulting "light-weight external tank" was first flown on STS-6 ^[61] and used on the majority of Shuttle missions. STS-91 saw the first flight of the "super light-weight external tank". This version of the tank was made of the 2195 aluminum-lithium alloy. It weighed 3.4 metric tons (7,500 lb) less than the last run of lightweight tanks, allowing the Shuttle to deliver heavy elements to ISS's high inclination orbit.^[61] As the Shuttle was always operated with a crew, each of these improvements was first flown on operational mission flights.

The solid rocket boosters underwent improvements as well. Design engineers added a third O-ring seal to the joints between the segments after the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Several other SRB improvements were planned to improve performance and safety, but never came to be. These culminated in the considerably simpler, lower cost, probably safer and better-performing Advanced Solid Rocket Booster. These rockets entered production in the early to mid-1990s to support the Space Station, but were later canceled to save money after the expenditure of $2.2 billion.^[62] The loss of the ASRB program resulted in the development of the Super LightWeight external Tank (SLWT), which provided some of the increased payload capability, while not providing any of the safety improvements. In addition, the U.S. Air Force developed their own much lighter single-piece SRB design using a filament-wound system, but this too was canceled.

STS-70 was delayed in 1995, when woodpeckers bored holes in the foam insulation of Discovery's external tank. Since then, NASA has installed commercial plastic owl decoys and inflatable owl balloons which had to be removed prior to launch.^[63] The delicate nature of the foam insulation had been the cause of damage to the Thermal Protection System, the tile heat shield and heat wrap of the orbiter. NASA remained confident that this damage, while it was the primary cause of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster on February 1, 2003, would not jeopardize the completion of the International Space Station (ISS) in the projected time allotted.

A cargo-only, unmanned variant of the Shuttle was variously proposed and rejected since the 1980s. It was called the Shuttle-C, and would have traded re-usability for cargo capability, with large potential savings from reusing technology developed for the Space Shuttle. Another proposal was to convert the payload bay into a passenger area, with versions ranging from 30 to 74 seats, three days in orbit, and cost US$1.5 million per seat.^[64]

On the first four Shuttle missions, astronauts wore modified U.S. Air Force high-altitude full-pressure suits, which included a full-pressure helmet during ascent and descent. From the fifth flight, STS-5, until the loss of Challenger, one-piece light blue nomex flight suits and partial-pressure helmets were worn. A less-bulky, partial-pressure version of the high-altitude pressure suits with a helmet was reinstated when Shuttle flights resumed in 1988. The Launch-Entry Suit ended its service life in late 1995, and was replaced by the full-pressure Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES), which resembled the Gemini space suit in design, but retained the orange color of the Launch-Entry Suit.

To extend the duration that orbiters could stay docked at the ISS, the Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System (SSPTS) was installed. The SSPTS allowed these orbiters to use power provided by the ISS to preserve their consumables. The SSPTS was first used successfully on STS-118.

Specifications

Mission profile

Launch preparation

All Space Shuttle missions were launched from Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The weather criteria used for launch included, but were not limited to: precipitation, temperatures, cloud cover, lightning forecast, wind, and humidity.^[70] The Shuttle was not launched under conditions where it could have been struck by lightning. Aircraft are often struck by lightning with no adverse effects because the electricity of the strike is dissipated through its conductive structure and the aircraft is not electrically grounded. Like most jet airliners, the Shuttle was mainly constructed of conductive aluminum, which would normally shield and protect the internal systems. However, upon liftoff the Shuttle sent out a long exhaust plume as it ascended, and this plume could have triggered lightning by providing a current path to ground. The NASA Anvil Rule for a Shuttle launch stated that an anvil cloud could not appear within a distance of 10 nautical miles.^[71] The Shuttle Launch Weather Officer monitored conditions until the final decision to scrub a launch was announced. In addition, the weather conditions had to be acceptable at one of the Transatlantic Abort Landing sites (one of several Space Shuttle abort modes) to launch as well as the solid rocket booster recovery area.^[70]^[72] While the Shuttle might have safely endured a lightning strike, a similar strike caused problems on Apollo 12, so for safety NASA chose not to launch the Shuttle if lightning was possible (NPR8715.5).

Historically, the Shuttle was not launched if its flight would run from December to January (a year-end rollover or YERO). Its flight software, designed in the 1970s, was not designed for this, and would require the orbiter's computers be reset through a change of year, which could cause a glitch while in orbit. In 2007, NASA engineers devised a solution so Shuttle flights could cross the year-end boundary.^[73]

Launch

After the final hold in the countdown at T-minus 9 minutes, the Shuttle went through its final preparations for launch, and the countdown was automatically controlled by the Ground Launch Sequencer (GLS), software at the Launch Control Center, which stopped the count if it sensed a critical problem with any of the Shuttle's onboard systems. The GLS handed off the count to the Shuttle's on-board computers at T minus 31 seconds, in a process called auto sequence start.

At T-minus 16 seconds, the massive sound suppression system (SPS) began to drench the Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP) and SRB trenches with {{convert|300000|USgal|m3|sigfig=2}} of water to protect the Orbiter from damage by acoustical energy and rocket exhaust reflected from the flame trench and MLP during lift off.^[74]^[75]

At T-minus 10 seconds, hydrogen igniters were activated under each engine bell to quell the stagnant gas inside the cones before ignition. Failure to burn these gases could trip the onboard sensors and create the possibility of an overpressure and explosion of the vehicle during the firing phase. The main engine turbopumps also began charging the combustion chambers with liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen at this time. The computers reciprocated this action by allowing the redundant computer systems to begin the firing phase.

The three main engines (SSMEs) started at T-6.6 seconds. The main engines ignited sequentially via the Shuttle's general purpose computers (GPCs) at 120 millisecond intervals. All three SSMEs were required to reach 90% rated thrust within three seconds, otherwise the onboard computers would initiate an RSLS abort. If all three engines indicated nominal performance by T-3 seconds, they were commanded to gimbal to liftoff configuration and the command would be issued to arm the SRBs for ignition at T-0.^[76] Between T-6.6 seconds and T-3 seconds, while the SSMEs were firing but the SRBs were still bolted to the pad, the offset thrust caused the entire launch stack (boosters, tank and orbiter) to pitch down {{convert|25.5|in|abbr=on|order=flip}} measured at the tip of the external tank. The three second delay after confirmation of SSME operation was to allow the stack to return to nearly vertical. At T-0 seconds, the 8 frangible nuts holding the SRBs to the pad were detonated, the SSMEs were commanded to 100% throttle, and the SRBs were ignited. By T+0.23 seconds, the SRBs built up enough thrust for liftoff to commence, and reached maximum chamber pressure by T+0.6 seconds.^[77] The Johnson Space Center's Mission Control Center assumed control of the flight once the SRBs had cleared the launch tower.

Shortly after liftoff, the Shuttle's main engines were throttled up to 104.5% and the vehicle began a combined roll, pitch and yaw maneuver that placed it onto the correct heading (azimuth) for the planned orbital inclination and in a heads down attitude with wings level. The Shuttle flew upside down during the ascent phase. This orientation allowed a trim angle of attack that was favorable for aerodynamic loads during the region of high dynamic pressure, resulting in a net positive load factor, as well as providing the flight crew with a view of the horizon as a visual reference. The vehicle climbed in a progressively flattening arc, accelerating as the mass of the SRBs and main tank decreased. To achieve low orbit requires much more horizontal than vertical acceleration. This was not visually obvious, since the vehicle rose vertically and was out of sight for most of the horizontal acceleration. The near circular orbital velocity at the {{convert|380|km|mi|sigfig=3|sp=us}} altitude of the International Space Station is {{convert|27650|km/h|mph|abbr=on|sigfig=4|sp=us}}, roughly equivalent to Mach 23 at sea level. As the International Space Station orbits at an inclination of 51.6 degrees, missions going there must set orbital inclination to the same value in order to rendezvous with the station.

Around 30 seconds into ascent, the SSMEs were throttled down—usually to 72%, though this varied—to reduce the maximum aerodynamic forces acting on the Shuttle at a point called Max Q. Additionally, the propellant grain design of the SRBs caused their thrust to drop by about 30% by 50 seconds into ascent. Once the Orbiter's guidance verified that Max Q would be within Shuttle structural limits, the main engines were throttled back up to 104.5%; this throttling down and back up was called the "thrust bucket". To maximize performance, the throttle level and timing of the thrust bucket was shaped to bring the Shuttle as close to aerodynamic limits as possible.^[78]

At around T+126 seconds, pyrotechnic fasteners released the SRBs and small separation rockets pushed them laterally away from the vehicle. The SRBs parachuted back to the ocean to be reused. The Shuttle then began accelerating to orbit on the main engines. Acceleration at this point would typically fall to .9 g, and the vehicle would take on a somewhat nose-up angle to the horizon{{spaced ndash}}it used the main engines to gain and then maintain altitude while it accelerated horizontally towards orbit. At about five and three-quarter minutes into ascent, the orbiter's direct communication links with the ground began to fade, at which point it rolled heads up to reroute its communication links to the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite system.

At about seven and a half minutes into ascent, the mass of the vehicle was low enough that the engines had to be throttled back to limit vehicle acceleration to 3 g (29.4 m/s² or 96.5 ft/s², equivalent to accelerating from zero to {{convert|105.9|km/h|mph|abbr=on|}} in a second). The Shuttle would maintain this acceleration for the next minute, and main engine cut-off (MECO) occurred at about eight and a half minutes after launch.^[79] The main engines were shut down before complete depletion of propellant, as running dry would have destroyed the engines. The oxygen supply was terminated before the hydrogen supply, as the SSMEs reacted unfavorably to other shutdown modes. (Liquid oxygen has a tendency to react violently, and supports combustion when it encounters hot engine metal.) A few seconds after MECO, the external tank was released by firing pyrotechnic fasteners.

At this point the Shuttle and external tank were on a slightly suborbital trajectory, coasting up towards apogee. Once at apogee, about half an hour after MECO, the Shuttle's Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) engines were fired to raise its perigee and achieve orbit, while the external tank fell back into the atmosphere and burned up over the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean depending on launch profile.^[65] The sealing action of the tank plumbing and lack of pressure relief systems on the external tank helped it break up in the lower atmosphere. After the foam burned away during re-entry, the heat caused a pressure buildup in the remaining liquid oxygen and hydrogen until the tank exploded. This ensured that any pieces that fell back to Earth were small.

The Shuttle was monitored throughout its ascent for short range tracking (10 seconds before liftoff through 57 seconds after), medium range (7 seconds before liftoff through 110 seconds after) and long range (7 seconds before liftoff through 165 seconds after). Short range cameras included 22 16mm cameras on the Mobile Launch Platform and 8 16mm on the Fixed Service Structure, 4 high speed fixed cameras located on the perimeter of the launch complex plus an additional 42 fixed cameras with 16mm motion picture film. Medium range cameras included remotely operated tracking cameras at the launch complex plus 6 sites along the immediate coast north and south of the launch pad, each with 800mm lens and high speed cameras running 100 frames per second. These cameras ran for only 4–10 seconds due to limitations in the amount of film available. Long range cameras included those mounted on the external tank, SRBs and orbiter itself which streamed live video back to the ground providing valuable information about any debris falling during ascent. Long range tracking cameras with 400-inch film and 200-inch video lenses were operated by a photographer at Playalinda Beach as well as 9 other sites from 38 miles north at the Ponce Inlet to 23 miles south to Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) and additional mobile optical tracking camera was stationed on Merritt Island during launches. A total of 10 HD cameras were used both for ascent information for engineers and broadcast feeds to networks such as NASA TV and HDNet. The number of cameras significantly increased and numerous existing cameras were upgraded at the recommendation of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board to provide better information about the debris during launch. Debris was also tracked using a pair of Weibel Continuous Pulse Doppler X-band radars, one on board the SRB recovery ship MV Liberty Star positioned north east of the launch pad and on a ship positioned south of the launch pad. Additionally, during the first 2 flights following the loss of Columbia and her crew, a pair of NASA WB-57 reconnaissance aircraft equipped with HD Video and Infrared flew at {{convert|60000|ft}} to provide additional views of the launch ascent.^[80] Kennedy Space Center also invested nearly $3 million in improvements to the digital video analysis systems in support of debris tracking.^[81]

In orbit

Once in orbit, the Shuttle usually flew at an altitude of {{convert|320|km|nmi|abbr=on}}, although the STS-82 mission reached {{convert|620|km|nmi|abbr=on}}.^[82] In the 1980s and 1990s, many flights involved space science missions on the NASA/ESA Spacelab, or launching various types of satellites and science probes. By the 1990s and 2000s the focus shifted more to servicing the space station, with fewer satellite launches. Most missions involved staying in orbit several days to two weeks, although longer missions were possible with the Extended Duration Orbiter add-on or when attached to a space station. STS-80 was the longest at almost 17 days and 16 hours.

Re-entry and landing

Almost the entire Space Shuttle re-entry procedure, except for lowering the landing gear and deploying the air data probes, was normally performed under computer control. The re-entry could be flown entirely manually if an emergency arose. The approach and landing phase could be controlled by the autopilot, but was usually hand flown.

The vehicle began re-entry by firing the Orbital maneuvering system engines, while flying upside down, backside first, in the opposite direction to orbital motion for approximately three minutes, which reduced the Shuttle's velocity by about {{convert|200|mph|km/h|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}. The resultant slowing of the Shuttle lowered its orbital perigee down into the upper atmosphere. The Shuttle then flipped over, by pushing its nose down (which was actually "up" relative to the Earth, because it was flying upside down). This OMS firing was done roughly halfway around the globe from the landing site.

The vehicle started encountering more significant air density in the lower thermosphere at about {{convert|400000|ft|km|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}, at around Mach 25, {{convert|8200|m/s|km/h mph|abbr=on|sigfig=2|sp=us}}. The vehicle was controlled by a combination of RCS thrusters and control surfaces, to fly at a 40-degree nose-up attitude, producing high drag, not only to slow it down to landing speed, but also to reduce reentry heating. As the vehicle encountered progressively denser air, it began a gradual transition from spacecraft to aircraft. In a straight line, its 40-degree nose-up attitude would cause the descent angle to flatten-out, or even rise. The vehicle therefore performed a series of four steep S-shaped banking turns, each lasting several minutes, at up to 70 degrees of bank, while still maintaining the 40-degree angle of attack. In this way it dissipated speed sideways rather than upwards. This occurred during the 'hottest' phase of re-entry, when the heat-shield glowed red and the G-forces were at their highest. By the end of the last turn, the transition to aircraft was almost complete. The vehicle leveled its wings, lowered its nose into a shallow dive and began its approach to the landing site.

The orbiter's maximum glide ratio/lift-to-drag ratio varied considerably with speed, ranging from 1:1 at hypersonic speeds, 2:1 at supersonic speeds and reaching 4.5:1 at subsonic speeds during approach and landing.^[83]

In the lower atmosphere, the orbiter flew much like a conventional glider, except for a much higher descent rate, over {{convert|50|m/s|km/h mph|abbr=on|sigfig=2|sp=us}} or 9,800 fpm. At approximately Mach 3, two air data probes, located on the left and right sides of the orbiter's forward lower fuselage, were deployed to sense air pressure related to the vehicle's movement in the atmosphere.

When the approach and landing phase began, the orbiter was at a {{convert|3000|m|ft|abbr=on|sigfig=2|sp=us}} altitude, {{convert|12|km|mi|abbr=on}} from the runway. The pilots applied aerodynamic braking to help slow down the vehicle. The orbiter's speed was reduced from {{convert|682|to|346|km/h|mph|abbr=on}}, approximately, at touch-down (compared to {{convert|260|km/h|mph|abbr=on|disp=or|sp=us}} for a jet airliner). The landing gear was deployed while the Orbiter was flying at {{convert|430|km/h|mph|abbr=on}}. To assist the speed brakes, a {{convert|12|m|ft|abbr=on|sigfig=2|sp=us}} drag chute was deployed either after main gear or nose gear touchdown (depending on selected chute deploy mode) at about {{convert|343|km/h|mph|abbr=on|sigfig=3|sp=us}}. The chute was jettisoned once the orbiter slowed to {{convert|110|km/h|mph|abbr=on|sigfig=3|sp=us}}.

Post-landing processing

After landing, the vehicle stayed on the runway for several hours for the orbiter to cool. Teams at the front and rear of the orbiter tested for presence of hydrogen, hydrazine, monomethylhydrazine, nitrogen tetroxide and ammonia (fuels and by-products of the reaction control system and the orbiter's three APUs). If hydrogen was detected, an emergency would be declared, the orbiter powered down and teams would evacuate the area. A convoy of 25 specially designed vehicles and 150 trained engineers and technicians approached the orbiter. Purge and vent lines were attached to remove toxic gases from fuel lines and the cargo bay about 45–60 minutes after landing. A flight surgeon boarded the orbiter for initial medical checks of the crew before disembarking. Once the crew left the orbiter, responsibility for the vehicle was handed from the Johnson Space Center back to the Kennedy Space Center.^[84]

If the mission ended at Edwards Air Force Base in California, White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico, or any of the runways the orbiter might use in an emergency, the orbiter was loaded atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, a modified 747, for transport back to the Kennedy Space Center, landing at the Shuttle Landing Facility. Once at the Shuttle Landing Facility, the orbiter was then towed {{convert|2|mi}} along a tow-way and access roads normally used by tour buses and KSC employees to the Orbiter Processing Facility where it began a months-long preparation process for the next mission.^[84]

Landing sites

NASA preferred Space Shuttle landings to be at Kennedy Space Center.^[85] If weather conditions made landing there unfavorable, the Shuttle could delay its landing until conditions are favorable, touch down at Edwards Air Force Base, California, or use one of the multiple alternate landing sites around the world. A landing at any site other than Kennedy Space Center meant that after touchdown the Shuttle must be mated to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and returned to Cape Canaveral. Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-3) once landed at the White Sands Space Harbor, New Mexico; this was viewed as a last resort as NASA scientists believed that the sand could potentially damage the Shuttle's exterior.

Risk contributors

An example of technical risk analysis for a STS mission is SPRA iteration 3.1 top risk contributors for STS-133:^[88]^[89]

An internal NASA risk assessment study (conducted by the Shuttle Program Safety and Mission Assurance Office at Johnson Space Center) released in late 2010 or early 2011 concluded that the agency had seriously underestimated the level of risk involved in operating the Shuttle. The report assessed that there was a 1 in 9 chance of a catastrophic disaster during the first nine flights of the Shuttle but that safety improvements had later improved the risk ratio to 1 in 90.^[90]

Fleet history

Flight timeline

Major events

Disasters

On January 28, 1986, Challenger disintegrated 73 seconds after launch due to the failure of the right SRB, killing all seven astronauts on board. The disaster was caused by low-temperature impairment of an O-ring, a mission critical seal used between segments of the SRB casing. Failure of the O-ring allowed hot combustion gases to escape from between the booster sections and burn through the adjacent external tank, leading to a sequence of events which caused the orbiter to disintegrate.^[96] Repeated warnings from design engineers voicing concerns about the lack of evidence of the O-rings' safety when the temperature was below 53 °F (12 °C) had been ignored by NASA managers.^[97]

On February 1, 2003, Columbia disintegrated during re-entry, killing its crew of seven, because of damage to the carbon-carbon leading edge of the wing caused during launch. Ground control engineers had made three separate requests for high-resolution images taken by the Department of Defense that would have provided an understanding of the extent of the damage, while NASA's chief thermal protection system (TPS) engineer requested that astronauts on board Columbia be allowed to leave the vehicle to inspect the damage. NASA managers intervened to stop the Department of Defense's assistance and refused the request for the spacewalk,^[98] and thus the feasibility of scenarios for astronaut repair or rescue by Atlantis were not considered by NASA management at the time.^[99]

Retirement

NASA retired the Space Shuttle in 2011, after 30 years of service. The Shuttle was originally conceived of and presented to the public as a "Space Truck", which would, among other things, be used to build a United States space station in low earth orbit in the early 1990s. When the U.S. space station evolved into the International Space Station project, which suffered from long delays and design changes before it could be completed, the retirement of the Space Shuttle was delayed several times until 2011, serving at least 15 years longer than originally planned. Discovery was the first of NASA's three remaining operational Space Shuttles to be retired.^[100]

The final Space Shuttle mission was originally scheduled for late 2010, but the program was later extended to July 2011 when Michael Suffredini of the ISS program said that one additional trip was needed in 2011 to deliver parts to the International Space Station.^[101] The Shuttle's final mission consisted of just four astronauts—Christopher Ferguson (Commander), Douglas Hurley (Pilot), Sandra Magnus (Mission Specialist 1), and Rex Walheim (Mission Specialist 2);^[102] they conducted the 135th and last space Shuttle mission on board Atlantis, which launched on July 8, 2011, and landed safely at the Kennedy Space Center on July 21, 2011, at 5:57 AM EDT (09:57 UTC).^[103]

Distribution of orbiters and other hardware

NASA announced it would transfer orbiters to education institutions or museums at the conclusion of the Space Shuttle program. Each museum or institution is responsible for covering the {{US$|28.8 million}} cost of preparing and transporting each vehicle for display. Twenty museums from across the country submitted proposals for receiving one of the retired orbiters.^[104] NASA also made Space Shuttle thermal protection system tiles available to schools and universities for less than US$25 each.^[105] About 7,000 tiles were available on a first-come, first-served basis, limited to one per institution.^[105]

Orbiters on display

On April 12, 2011, NASA announced selection of locations for the remaining Shuttle orbiters:^[106]^[107]

In August 2011, the NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a "Review of NASA's Selection of Display Locations for the Space Shuttle Orbiters"; the review had four main findings:^[108]

In September 2011, the CEO and two board members of Seattle's Museum of Flight met with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, pointing out "significant errors in deciding where to put its four retiring Space Shuttles"; the errors alleged include inaccurate information on Museum of Flight's attendance and international visitor statistics, as well as the readiness of the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum's exhibit site.^[109]

Orbiter replicas on display

Hardware on display

One of the Crew Compartment Trainer (CCT) Flight and mid-deck training hardware was taken from the Johnson Space Center to the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force, another remains on display at JSC. The Full Fuselage Trainer (FFT), which includes the payload bay and aft section but no wings, went to the Museum of Flight in Seattle. The Mission Simulation and Training Facility's Shuttle Mission Simulator Fixed Base Simulator went to the Adler Planetarium in Chicago^[112] but due to funding issues was later transferred to the Stafford Air & Space Museum in Weatherford OK^[113]; the Motion Base Simulator went to the Texas A&M Aerospace Engineering Department in College Station, Texas, where it remains in storage awaiting funding or other disposition^[114]; and the Guidance and Navigation Simulator (GNS) went to the Wings of Dreams Aviation Museum in Starke, Florida^[115]. One of the Single System Trainers (SSTs) used in Shuttle astronaut training went to the Virginia Air and Space Center in Hampton, Virginia, the other two remain on display at the Johnson Space Center.^[104]

Successors and legacy

Until another U.S. manned spacecraft is ready, crews will travel to and from the International Space Station (ISS) exclusively aboard the Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

A planned successor to STS was the "Shuttle II", during the 1980s and 1990s, and later the Constellation program during the 2004–2010 period. CSTS was a proposal to continue to operate STS commercially, after NASA.^[116] In September 2011, NASA announced the selection of the design for the new Space Launch System that is planned to launch the Orion spacecraft and other hardware to missions beyond low earth-orbit.^[117]^[118]^[119]

The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program began in 2006 with the purpose of creating commercially operated unmanned cargo vehicles to service the ISS.^[120] The Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program was started in 2010 to create commercially operated manned spacecraft capable of delivering at least four crew members to the ISS, to stay docked for 180 days, and then return them back to Earth.^[121] These spacecraft were to become operational in the 2010s.^[122]

In popular culture

Space Shuttles have been features of fiction and nonfiction, from children's movies to documentaries. Early examples include the 1979 James Bond film, Moonraker, the 1982 Activision videogame Space Shuttle: A Journey into Space (1982) and G. Harry Stine's 1981 novel Shuttle Down. In the 1986 film SpaceCamp, Atlantis accidentally launches into space with a group of U.S. Space Camp participants as its crew. A Space Shuttle named Intrepid is featured in the 1989 film Moontrap.

The 1998 film Armageddon portrays a combined crew of offshore oil rig workers and U.S. military staff who pilot two modified Shuttles to avert the destruction of Earth by an asteroid. Retired American test pilots visit a Russian satellite in the 2000 Clint Eastwood adventure film Space Cowboys. In the 2003 film The Core, the Endeavour{{'}}s landing is disrupted by the Earth's magnetic core, and its crew is selected to pilot a vehicle designed to restart the core. The 2004 Bollywood movie Swades, where a Space Shuttle is used to launch a special rainfall monitoring satellite, was filmed at Kennedy Space Center in the year after the Columbia disaster that had taken the life of Indian-American astronaut KC Chawla.

On television, the 1996 drama The Cape portrays the lives of a group of NASA astronauts as they prepare for and fly Shuttle missions. Odyssey 5 was a short-lived sci-fi series that features the crew of a Space Shuttle as the last survivors of a disaster that destroys Earth. The 1997–2007 sci-fi series Stargate SG-1 has a shuttle rescue written into an episode.

The 2013 film Gravity features the fictional Space Shuttle Explorer during STS-157, whose crew are killed or left stranded after it is destroyed by a shower of high speed orbital debris. The 2017 Lego film The Lego Batman Movie features a hybrid between the Batmobile and a Space Shuttle, named "the Bat Space Shuttle" by Dick Grayson. It's clearly based on the Lego City set 3367 ("Space Shuttle"), but is black and weapon-equipped.

The Space Shuttle has also been the subject of toys and models; for example, a large Lego Space Shuttle model was constructed by visitors at Kennedy Space Center,^[124] and smaller models have been sold commercially as a standard "LegoLand" set. A 1980 pinball machine Space Shuttle was produced by Zaccaria and a 1984 pinball machine Space Shuttle: Pinball Adventure was produced by Williams and features a plastic Space Shuttle model among other artwork of astronauts on the play field. The Space Shuttle also appears in a number of flight simulator and space flight simulator games such as Microsoft Space Simulator, Orbiter, FlightGear, X-Plane and Space Shuttle Mission 2007. Several Transformers toys were modeled after the Space Shuttle.

U.S. postage commemorations

The U.S. Postal Service has released several postage issues that depict the Space Shuttle. The first such stamps were issued in 1981, and are on display at the National Postal Museum.^[125]

See also

Space Shuttle related

Physics

Similar spacecraft

References

1. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.technologyreview.com/article/424586/was-the-space-shuttle-a-mistake/page/2/ |title=Was the Space Shuttle a Mistake? |publisher=MIT Technology Review |date=July 6, 2011 |last=Logsdon |first=John |authorlink=John Logsdon |page=2 |accessdate=September 17, 2018}}
2. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10 |title=How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle? |accessdate=June 28, 2011 |publisher=NASA |year=2011 |author=NASA}}
3. ^¹The Rise and Fall of the Space Shuttle, Book Review: Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program by Pat Duggins, American Scientist, 2008, Vol. 96, No. 5, p. 32.
4. ^¹{{cite web |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303544604576433830373220742 |title=As Shuttle Sails Through Space, Costs Are Tough to Pin Down |publisher=wsj.com |date=July 9, 2011 |accessdate=18 February 2015 |author=CARL BIALIK}}
5. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html |title=NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion – Was it Worth It? |publisher=Space.com |date=5 July 2011 |accessdate=18 February 2015 |author=Mike Wall}}
6. ^{{cite journal |url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7341/full/472038d.html |title=Shuttle programme lifetime cost |date=7 April 2011 |last=Pielke Jr. |first=Roger |author2=Radford Byerly |bibcode=2011Natur.472...38P |journal=Nature |volume=472 |issue=7341 |doi=10.1038/472038d |page=38 |pmid=21475182}}
7. ^¹{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/?id=zopTAAAAMAAJ&q=Space+Shuttle+return+payload&dq=Space+Shuttle+return+payload |title= Space stations and platforms |author= Woodcock, Gordon R. |publisher=Orbit Book co. |year= 1986 |accessdate=2012-04-17 |quote= "The present limit on Shuttle landing payload is 14400 kg. (32000 lb). This value applies to payloads intended for landing." |isbn= 9780894640018}}
8. ^{{cite web |title=Mission Pages |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html|website=Nasa.Gov}}
9. ^{{cite web |last1=Kyle |first1=Ed |title=STS Data Sheet |url=http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sts.html|website=spacelaunchreport.com |accessdate=May 4, 2018}}
10. ^¹{{cite web |url=http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/taskgrp.html |title=Space Task Group Report, 1969 |first=Roger D. |last=Launius |publisher= NASA}}
11. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.space.com/12376-nasa-space-shuttle-program-facts-statistics.html |title=NASA's Space Shuttle By the Numbers: 30 Years of a Spaceflight Icon |publisher=Space.com |date=July 21, 2011 |accessdate=June 18, 2014 |author=Malik, Tarik}}
12. ^{{cite news |last=Bewley |first=Elizabeth |title=SpaceX working on reusable rocket |url=http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110930/NEWS02/309300020/SpaceX-working-reusable-rocket |accessdate=2011-09-30 |newspaper=Florida Today |date=September 30, 2011 |quote=[many] rockets typically are used just once, although some partly reusable versions have been developed, such as the Space Shuttle.}}
13. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/nasa-bill-passed-by-congress-would-allow-for-one-additional-shuttle-flight-in-2011 |title=NASA bill passed by Congress would allow for one additional Shuttle flight in 2011 |author=Jim Abrams |agency=Associated Press |date=September 29, 2010 |accessdate=September 30, 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707073317/http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/national/nasa-bill-passed-by-congress-would-allow-for-one-additional-shuttle-flight-in-2011 |archivedate=July 7, 2012 |df=}}
14. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-naw-atlantis-shuttle-launch-20110709,0,1541836.story |title=Space Shuttle Atlantis Lifts Off |date=July 9, 2011 |work=Los Angeles Times |first1=Ralph |last1=Vartabedian |first2=W.J. |last2=Hennigan}}
15. ^{{cite web |title=7 cool things you didn't know about Atlantis |url=http://www.space.com/news/7cool-things-space-shuttle-atlantis-100512.html}}
16. ^{{cite web |url= http://www.space.com/17983-space-shuttle-enterprise.html |title= Enterprise: The Test Shuttle |author= Elizabeth Howell |date= October 9, 2012 |accessdate= October 28, 2014}}
17. ^¹²[https://books.google.com/books?id=xENWAAAAMAAJ&dq=D1+mission+has+been+financed+entirely+by+the+German+Ministry+of+Research+and+Technology&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=D1+mission+has+been+financed+entirely+by+the+German Interavia (1985), Volume 40, p. 1170] Google Books quote: "This is the first time that control of a payload aboard a manned Shuttle has been in non-US hands. The D1 mission has been financed entirely by the German Ministry of Research and Technology. .."
18. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.damec.dk/vis.asp?id=44 |title=Columbia Spacelab D2 – STS-55 |publisher=Damec.dk |accessdate=December 4, 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719121854/http://www.damec.dk/vis.asp?id=44 |archivedate=July 19, 2011 |df=mdy-all}}
19. ^ESA – Spacelab D1 mission – 25 years ago (October 26, 2010)(Retrieved December 4, 2010)
20. ^{{cite book |author=Tim Furniss |title=A History of Space Exploration: And Its Future |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q-jQG5C8wwcC&pg=PA89 |year=2003 |publisher=Lyons Press|isbn=978-1-58574-650-7 |page=89}}
21. ^{{cite book |author=Reginald Turnill |title=Jane's Spaceflight Directory |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jLdTAAAAMAAJ |year=1986 |publisher=Jane's |isbn=978-0-7106-0367-8 |page=139 |quote=SM 22: the 1st German-funded Spacelab mission made use of the ESA Space Sled}}
22. ^¹Life into Space (1995/2000) – Volume 2, Chapter 4, Page: Spacelab-J (SL-J) Payload {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100527201342/http://lis.arc.nasa.gov/lis2/Chapter4_Programs/SL_J/SL_J_Intro.html |date=May 27, 2010}}. NASA Life into Space {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110104084152/http://lis.arc.nasa.gov/ |date=January 4, 2011}}.
23. ^"NASA Takes Delivery of 100th Space Shuttle External Tank" {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070311004932/http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1999/99-193.html |date=March 11, 2007}}. NASA, August 16, 1999. Quote: "...orange spray-on foam used to insulate...."
24. ^"Media Invited To See Shuttle External Fuel Tank Ship From Michoud". NASA, December 28, 2004. Quote: "The gigantic, rust-colored external tank..."
25. ^{{citation |url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/290339main_8-388221J.pdf |title=Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster |accessdate=July 15, 2012 |publisher=NASA |author=NASA |year=2008}}
26. ^{{cite web |title=Solid Rocket Boosters |url=http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html |publisher=NASA KSC |accessdate=2011-06-30}}
27. ^{{cite web |url =http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/1997/11(November)/21-Nov-1997/25sol002.htm |title= PSA #1977 |accessdate=July 15, 2012 |publisher=Loren Data Corp.}}
28. ^¹{{cite web |url= http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/atmosphere.html |title=Earth's Atmosphere |accessdate=October 25, 2007 |publisher=NASA |year=1995 |author=NASA |archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20071013232332/http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/atmosphere.html |archivedate= October 13, 2007}}
29. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/index.htm |title=INTRODUCTION TO FUTURE LAUNCH VEHICLE PLANS [1963–2001] Updated 6/15/2001, by Marcus Lindroos |publisher=Pmview.com |date=June 15, 2001 |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
30. ^Shuttle Basics. NASA.
31. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html |title=NASA – Space Shuttle and International Space Station |publisher=Nasa.gov |accessdate=August 7, 2010}}
32. ^The Rise and Fall of the Space Shuttle, Book Review: Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program by Pat Duggins, American Scientist, 2008, Vol. 96, No. 5, p. 32.
33. ^{{cite web |title= Spacelab D1 mission – 25 years ago |url= http://www.esa.int/About_Us/Welcome_to_ESA/ESA_history/Spacelab_D1_mission_25_years_ago|website= European Space Agency |accessdate= 2015-11-28}}
34. ^{{Cite news |title= Europe at Helm of Tests on Next Spacelab Flight |url= http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-28/news/mn-11677_1_spacelab|newspaper= Los Angeles Times |date= 1985-10-28 |access-date= 2015-11-28|issn= 0458-3035 |language= en-US |first= LEE |last= DYE}}
35. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/events/exhibits/html/s91-39574.html |title= NASA - JSC Exhibits |website=NASA.gov}}
36. ^{{cite web |url=http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/centers.html |title=NASA Centers And Responsibilities |publisher=Science.ksc.nasa.gov |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
37. ^{{cite web |last=Guillemette |first=Roger |url=https://news.yahoo.com/declassified-us-spy-satellites-reveal-rare-look-secret-140205867.html |title=Declassified US Spy Satellites Reveal Rare Look at Secret Cold War Space Program |publisher=Yahoo! News |date=September 20, 2011 |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
38. ^{{cite web |url= http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/orbiters.html |title= Orbiter Vehicles |publisher=NASA Kennedy Space Center |accessdate=October 11, 2009 }}
39. ^{{cite web |title=Sound Suppression Water System Test |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sound-suppression-system.html |publisher=NASA |accessdate=2011-06-30}}
40. ^¹[https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940004970_1994004970.pdf NASA-CR-195281, "Utilization of the external tanks of the space transportation system"]. NASA, August 23–27, 1982.
41. ^STS External Tank Station {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150407010201/http://www.astronautix.com/craft/stsation.htm |date=April 7, 2015 }}. astronautix.com
42. ^¹Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report, Vol II, Appendix D.7 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090411132700/http://caib.nasa.gov/news/report/pdf/vol2/part07.pdf |date=April 11, 2009 }}. NASA, October 2003.
43. ^{{cite web |title=NASA Space Shuttle Columbia Launch |url=http://www.asterpix.com/console?as=1203639196321-20328515dc |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080607055607/http://www.asterpix.com/console/?as=1203639196321-20328515dc |archivedate=June 7, 2008 }}
44. ^{{cite web |author=NASA |url=https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appl2b.htm |title=Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident |publisher=NASA |accessdate=2011-06-30}}
45. ^NASA Ares I First Stage Motor to be Tested August 25. NASA, July 20, 2009.
46. ^{{cite journal |title=Soyuz a Smoother Ride than Shuttle, Astronaut Tells Students|journal=The ARRL Letter |date=March 4, 2005|volume=24|issue=9 |url=http://www.eham.net/articles/10417}}
47. ^{{cite web |title=Jack R. Lousma Oral History |url=http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/LousmaJR/LousmaJR_3-15-10.htm|work=NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project |date=15 March 2010}}
48. ^{{cite web |title=Launch and the First Day in Space |url=http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/sts-103/crew/grunsfeldreports/gr5.html|work=John Grunsfeld Reports |date=December 21, 1999}}
49. ^{{cite web |last=Davis |first=Lauren |title=The time an astronaut called into Car Talk from the Space Shuttle |url=http://io9.com/5924311/the-time-an-astronaut-called-into-car-talk-from-the-space-shuttle |date=July 8, 2012}}
50. ^{{cite web |url=http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_stage/tos-21.htm |title=Gunter's Space Page – TOS-21H |publisher=Space.skyrocket.de |date=September 25, 1992 |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
51. ^¹²³⁴⁵⁶{{cite web |url=https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/msad15mar99_1/ |title=Spacelab joined diverse scientists and disciplines on 28 Shuttle missions |publisher=NASA |date=March 15, 1999 |accessdate=February 11, 2011}}
52. ^¹²³{{cite web |url=http://www.esa.int/esaCP/Pr_10_1998_i_EN.html |title=ESA – N° 10-1998: 25 years of Spacelab – Go for Space Station |publisher=Esa.int |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
53. ^{{cite web |publisher=NASA Office of Logic Design |url=http://www.klabs.org/mapld06/abstracts/139_ferguson_a.html |title=Implementing Space Shuttle Data Processing System Concepts in Programmable Logic Devices |accessdate=August 27, 2006 |author=Ferguson, Roscoe C. |author2=Robert Tate |author3=Hiram C. Thompson}}
54. ^{{cite web |url=http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_shuttle.html |title=IBM and the Space Shuttle |accessdate=August 27, 2006 |author=IBM |publisher=IBM}}
55. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1139464298 |title=Pioneering the Laptop:Engineering the GRiD Compass |accessdate=October 25, 2007 |publisher=The Computer History Museum |year=2006 |author=The Computer History Museum |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071204034101/http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1139464298 |archivedate=December 4, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}
56. ^{{cite web |url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20020090827_2002146711.pdf |title=Portable Compute |accessdate=June 23, 2010 |publisher=NASA |year=1985 |author=NASA}}
57. ^{{cite web |url=https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/flyfeature_shuttlecomputers.html |title=NASA - Shuttle Computers Navigate Record of Reliability |last=KSC |first=Steven Siceloff,|website=www.nasa.gov |language=en |access-date=2017-02-03}}
58. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9574776 |title=Recession Special: NASA Cuts Space Shuttle Price |last=Dunn |first=Marcia |date= January 15, 2010 |publisher=ABC News |accessdate=January 15, 2010|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100118122624/http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9574776|archivedate=January 18, 2010}}
59. ^{{cite web |last1=Ray |first1=Justin |title=Flying into the future |url=http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/features/000414overhaul/future.html |publisher=Spaceflight Now |accessdate=May 4, 2018 |date=July 2014}}
60. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0285.shtml |title=Space Shuttle External Tank Foam Insulation |accessdate=October 25, 2007 |publisher=Aerospaceweb.org |year=2006 |author=Aerospaceweb.org}}
61. ^¹{{cite book |last1=Sivolella |first1=Davide |title=To Orbit and Back Again |date=2012 |publisher=Springer|location=New York|isbn=978-1-4614-0982-3 |page=165}}
62. ^{{cite web |author=Encyclopedia Astronautica |url=http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm |title=Shuttle |publisher=Encyclopedia Astronautica |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100118201447/http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm |archivedate=January 18, 2010 }}
63. ^{{cite web |url=http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/sts-70/woodpecker.html |title=Woodpeckers damage STS-70 External Tank |accessdate=August 27, 2006 |author=Jim Dumoulin |publisher=NASA}}
64. ^{{cite web |author=Peter Wainwright (spacefuture.com) |url=http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_space_tourist.shtml |title=L David, R Citron, T Rogers & C D Walker, April 25–28, 1985, "The Space Tourist", AAS 85-771 to −774. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual L5 Space Development Conference held April 25–28, 1985, in Washington, D.C |publisher=Spacefuture.com |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
65. ^¹{{cite book |last=Jenkins |first=Dennis R. |title=Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System |publisher=Voyageur Press |edition= |year= 2006 |isbn=978-0-9633974-5-4}}
66. ^{{cite web |url=http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/endeavour.html |title=John F. Kennedy Space Center – Space Shuttle Endeavour |publisher=Pao.ksc.nasa.gov |accessdate=June 17, 2009 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110521101826/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/endeavour.html |archivedate=May 21, 2011 |df= }}
67. ^Encyclopedia Astronautica,"Shuttle ISS" {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150824112546/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuleiss.htm |date=August 24, 2015 }}
68. ^¹²{{cite book |last=Jenkins |first=Dennis R. |title=Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System |publisher=Voyageur Press |edition=Third |year= 2002 |isbn=978-0-9633974-5-4}}
69. ^[https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910018886_1991018886.pdf Space Shuttle Propulsion Systems], p. 153. NASA, June 26, 1990.
70. ^¹{{cite web |url=http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1999/39-99.htm |title=SPACE SHUTTLE WEATHER LAUNCH COMMIT CRITERIA AND KSC END OF MISSION WEATHER LANDING CRITERIA|work=KSC Release No. 39-99 |publisher=NASA Kennedy Space Center |accessdate=July 6, 2009|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090626180630/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1999/39-99.htm|archivedate=June 26, 2009|df=mdy-all}}
71. ^{{cite web |last= Oblack |first= Rachelle |title= The Anvil Rule: How NASA Keeps Its Shuttles Safe form Thunderstorms |publisher= Thoughtco.com |date= March 5, 2018 |url= https://www.thoughtco.com/anvil-cloud-rule-3444263 |accessdate= September 17, 2018}}
72. ^NASA Launch Blog. . Retrieved June 10, 2008.
73. ^{{cite web |last=Bergin |first=Chris |title=NASA solves YERO problem for Shuttle |url=http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5026 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080418182718/http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5026 |archivedate=April 18, 2008 |date= February 19, 2007 |accessdate=December 22, 2007 }}
74. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sound-suppression-system.html |title=NASA - Sound Suppression System |publisher=}}
75. ^National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "Sound Suppression Water System" {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140313042409/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count4ssws.htm |date=March 13, 2014 }} Revised August 28, 2000. Retrieved July 9, 2006.
76. ^National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "NASA – Countdown 101". Retrieved July 10, 2008.
77. ^{{cite web |title=Shuttle Crew Operations Manual |url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/390651main_shuttle_crew_operations_manual.pdf |website=nasa.gov |accessdate=May 4, 2018}}
78. ^{{cite web |title=Aerodynamics and Flight Dynamics |url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/584730main_Wings-ch4d-pgs226-241.pdf |website= nasa.gov |date=February 2015 |accessdate=May 4, 2018}}
79. ^{{cite web |title=Ascent Timeline and Abort Boundaries - STS-135 |url=http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/fdf/135ascent.html |website=SpaceflightNow |accessdate=May 4, 2018 |date=February 2015}}
80. ^{{cite web |title=Shuttle launch imagery from land, air and water |url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/167722main_LaunchImagery06.pdf}}
81. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/missions/shuttle/rtf_optics100903.html |title=New Eyes for Shuttle Launches |publisher=Nasa.gov |date=November 22, 2007 |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
82. ^{{cite web |author=Anthony R. Curtis, editor@spacetoday.org |url=http://www.spacetoday.org/Questions/PolarSats.html |title=Space Today Online – Answers To Your Questions |publisher=Spacetoday.org |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
83. ^http://klabs.org/DEI/Processor/shuttle/shuttle_tech_conf/1985008580.pdf
84. ^¹{{cite web |title=From Landing to Launch Orbiter Processing |url=http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/orbiterprocessing2002.pdf |publisher=NASA Public Affairs Office |accessdate=2011-06-30|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721053142/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/orbiterprocessing2002.pdf|archivedate=July 21, 2011|df=mdy-all}}
85. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/landing_sites.html |title=NASA – Roster of Runways Ready to Bring a Shuttle Home |publisher=Nasa.gov |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
86. ^{{cite web |author=Global Security |publisher=GlobalSecurity.org |url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm |title=Space Shuttle Emergency Landing Sites |accessdate=August 3, 2007}}
87. ^{{cite web |author=US Northern Command |url=http://www.northcom.mil/News/2009/031309_a.html |title=DOD Support to manned space operations for STS-119 |accessdate=2011-06-30 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100113160305/http://www.northcom.mil/news/2009/031309_a.html |archivedate=January 13, 2010 |df=mdy-all }}
88. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/nasa-reviews-copv-for-final-program-flights/ |title=NASA Reviews COPV Reliability Concerns for Final Program Flights |accessdate=December 14, 2010 |publisher=NASASpaceflight.com |author=Chris Gebhardt}}
89. ^Hamlin, et al. [https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100005659_2010007106.pdf 2009 Space Shuttle Probabilistic Risk Assessment Overview] (.pdf). NASA.
90. ^Florida Today, "Report says NASA underestimated Shuttle dangers", Military Times, February 13, 2011. Retrieved February 15, 2011.
91. ^{{cite web |last=Wall |first=Mike |url=https://news.yahoo.com/35-years-ago-nasa-unveils-first-space-shuttle-114004743.html |title=35 Years Ago: NASA Unveils First Space Shuttle, 'Enterprise' |publisher=Yahoo! News |date=September 17, 2011 |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
92. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html |title=NASA – NASA's Shuttle and Rocket Launch Schedule |publisher=Nasa.gov |date=July 27, 2010 |accessdate=August 7, 2010}}
93. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jul/HQ_10-157_STS_Launch_Dates.html |title=NASA Updates Shuttle Target Launch Dates For Final Two Flights |accessdate=July 3, 2010 |publisher=NASA}}
94. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_manifest.html |title=Consolidated Launch Manifest |accessdate=May 28, 2009 |publisher=NASA}}
95. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/list_main.html |title=Space Shuttle Mission Archives |accessdate=May 28, 2009 |publisher=NASA}}
96. ^{{cite web |url=https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch3.htm |title= Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Chapter III: The Accident |publisher=History.nasa.gov |date= June 6, 1986 |accessdate= July 4, 2012}}
97. ^{{cite web |url=https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1ch6.htm |title=Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Chapter VI: An Accident Rooted in History, Chapter VI: An Accident Rooted in History |publisher=History.nasa.gov |date= June 6, 1986 |accessdate= July 17, 2009}}
98. ^"the Columbia Accident". century-of-flight.net
99. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D13.PDF |title=D13 – In-Flight Options |format=PDF |accessdate=July 17, 2009}}
100. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html |title=NASA – NASA's Shuttle and Rocket Launch Schedule |publisher=Nasa.gov |accessdate= July 17, 2009}}
101. ^{{cite web |author=John Pike |url= http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2010/space-100506-rianovosti01.htm |title=Space Shuttle may continue through next year – Roscosmos |publisher=Globalsecurity.org |date=May 13, 2010 |accessdate=August 7, 2010}}
102. ^{{cite news |title=Rare Four-Member Crew to Fly Final Shuttle |url=http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/03/rare-four-member-crew-to-fly-final-shuttle/?test=faces |accessdate=July 4, 2011 |agency=FoxNews |date=July 3, 2011}}
103. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/index.html |title= Launch and Landing |publisher=NASA |accessdate=July 23, 2011}}
104. ^¹{{cite news |title=Photo Gallery: How to display a retired space shuttle |url=http://collectspace.com/news/news-080210b.html |newspaper= Collect Space |date=November 1, 2010 |accessdate=July 11, 2011}}
105. ^¹{{cite news |url=http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/december/178743/NASA-offers-space-shuttle-tiles-to-school-and-universities |title=NASA offers space shuttle tiles to school and universities |work=Channel 13 News |date=December 1, 2010 |accessdate=July 11, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708133214/http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/december/178743/NASA-offers-space-shuttle-tiles-to-school-and-universities |archivedate=July 8, 2011}}
106. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/topics/shuttle_station/features/shuttle_homes.html |title=NASA Announces New Homes for Space Shuttle Orbiters After Retirement |author=Jason Townsend |date=April 12, 2011 |publisher=NASA |accessdate=April 12, 2011}}
107. ^{{cite news |last=McGeehan |first=Patrick |title=Space Shuttle to Land in Manhattan |url=http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/space-shuttle-to-land-in-manhattan/|newspaper=The New York Times |date=April 12, 2011 |accessdate=July 11, 2011}}
108. ^¹{{Cite report |type= Special Report |format= PDF |date= August 25, 2011 |title= Review of NASA's Selection of Display Locations for the Space Shuttle Orbiters |url= http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/Review_NASAs_Selection_Display_Locations.pdf |publisher= NASA Office of Inspector General |page= 26 |accessdate= 2011-10-05}}
109. ^{{cite web |url= http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016405754_shuttle05m.html |title= Seattle still dreams of landing a shuttle |date= October 4, 2011 |publisher= The Seattle Times |first= Jack |last= Broom |accessdate= 2011-10-05}}
110. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-052412a.html |title=Space shuttle replica sets sail for Houston |work=CollectSpace.com |date=May 24, 2012 |accessdate=May 25, 2012}}
111. ^{{cite news |url=http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/space-centers/johnson-space-center/independence-rises-history-atop-sca-space-center-houston/ |title=Independence rises into history atop SCA at Space Center Houston |work=Spaceflight Insider |first=Nathan |last=Moeller |date=August 15, 2014 |accessdate=August 16, 2014}}
112. ^{{cite web |last1=Mullen |first1=W |title=No shuttle for Adler, but museum will fly with simulator |url=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-04-12/news/ct-met-adler-planetarium-space-shuttl20110412_1_flight-situations-shuttle-space-flights |publisher=Chicago Tribune |accessdate=16 March 2019}}
113. ^{{cite web |last1=Pearlman |first1=Robert |title='Sooner State' shuttle: Stafford Museum to display NASA simulator in Oklahoma |url=http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-080316a-shuttle-simulator-stafford-museum.html |publisher=CollectSpace |accessdate=16 March 2019}}
114. ^{{cite web |last1=Gilpin |first1=Eva |title=Funds shortage has NASA simulator collecting dust |url=http://www.thebatt.com/science-technology/funds-shortage-has-nasa-simulator-collecting-dust/article_10942037-a873-5c2d-a4e7-44d29bf52c54.html |website=The Batallion |publisher=Texas A&M University |accessdate=16 March 2019}}
115. ^{{cite web |last1=Winston |first1=Hannah |title=A piece of NASA history lands at Keystone Heights museum |url=https://www.gainesville.com/news/20120506/a-piece-of-nasa-history-lands--at-keystone-heights-museum |website=gainsville.com |publisher=The Gainsville Sun |accessdate=16 March 2019}}
116. ^{{cite web |last=Coppinger |first=Rob |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41397955/ns/technology_and_science-space/ |title=NASA weighs plan to keep Space Shuttle until 2017 |publisher=MSNBC |date=February 3, 2011 |accessdate=2012-04-17}}
117. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/sep/HQ_11-301_SLS_Decision.html |title=NASA Announces Design For New Deep Space Exploration System |publisher=NASA |first=NASA |last=Release:11-301 |date=September 14, 2011 |accessdate=September 14, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110921160158/http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/sep/HQ_11-301_SLS_Decision.html |archivedate=September 21, 2011 |df=}}
118. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.c-span.org/Events/Press-Conference-on-the-Future-of-NASA-Space-Program/10737424158/ |title=Press Conference on the Future of NASA Space Program |publisher=C-Span VideoLibrary |date=September 14, 2011 |accessdate=September 14, 2011|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208145214/http://www.c-span.org/Events/Press-Conference-on-the-Future-of-NASA-Space-Program/10737424158/|archivedate=February 8, 2012|df=mdy-all}}
119. ^{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/science/space/15nasa.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 |title=NASA Unveils New Rocket Design|work=The New York Times |date=September 14, 2011 |accessdate=September 14, 2011}}
120. ^{{cite press release |publisher=NASA |date=August 18, 2006 |title=NASA Selects Crew and Cargo Transportation to Orbit Partners |url=http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06295_COTS_phase_1.html |accessdate=2006-11-21}}
121. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100201-biggest-ccdev-award-goes-sierra-nevada.html |title=Biggest CCDev Award Goes to Sierra Nevada |last=Berger |first=Brian |date=February 1, 2011 |publisher=Imaginova Corp. |accessdate=December 13, 2011}}
122. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.space.com/12119-nasa-private-space-taxis-commercial-spaceships.html |title=NASA's Plan for Private Space Taxis Takes Step Forward |date=June 30, 2011 |publisher=Space.com |accessdate=December 13, 2011}}
123. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.spaceshuttlecafe.com |title=eat_space_shuttle_nyc - eat_space_shuttle_nyc |publisher=}}
124. ^[https://books.google.com/books?id=3xBtR_TJZ8UC&q=Lego+Space+Shuttle&dq=Lego+Space+Shuttle&hl=en&ei=DtIHTc7qAcP68AbxpbDgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCA Cherie D. Abbey, Kevin Hillstrom – "Biography Today Annual Cumulation 2004: Profiles Of People Of ...: Volume 13; Volume 2004" (2004)], Page 55, Quote:"she went to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where she helped visitors build the world's largest Lego Space Shuttle"
125. ^{{cite web |url=http://www.arago.si.edu/index.asp?con=1&cmd=1&tid=2039305 |title=Arago: Space Achievement Issue |publisher=}}