Members Can Post Anonymously On This Site
ERS-2 buckles and bends during final farewell
-
Similar Topics
-
-
By NASA
With the historic first international space docking mission only six months away, preparations on the ground for the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (ASTP) intensified. At NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, workers in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) stacked the rocket for the mission, the final Saturn rocket assembled for flight. In the nearby Manned Spacecraft Operations Building (MSOB), the Apollo prime crew of Commander Thomas Stafford, Command Module Pilot Vance Brand, and Docking Module Pilot Donald “Deke” Slayton, and their backups Alan Bean, Ronald Evans, and Jack Lousma conducted vacuum chamber tests of the Command Module (CM), the final Apollo spacecraft prepared for flight.
Inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, workers attach fins to the Saturn IB’s first stage. In the VAB, workers secure the first stage of the Saturn IB rocket onto the milk stool, perched on Mobile Launcher-1. Workers lift the second stage of the Saturn IB rocket prior to mating with the first stage. Workers lower a boilerplate Apollo spacecraft onto the Saturn IB rocket. The Saturn IB rocket, serial number SA-210, used for ASTP had a lengthy history. Contractors originally built its two stages in 1967, at a time when NASA planned many more Saturn IB flights to test Apollo spacecraft components in Earth orbit in preparation for the Moon landing. By 1968, however, after four uncrewed Saturn IB launches, only one launched a crew, Apollo 7. Four more Saturn IBs remained on reserve to launch crews as part of the Apollo Applications Program, renamed Skylab in 1970. Without an immediate mission, the two stages of SA-210 entered long-term storage in 1967. Workers later modified and refurbished the stages for ASTP before shipping them to KSC. The first stage arrived in April 1974 and the second stage in November 1972.
On Jan. 13, 1975, inside the cavernous VAB, workers stacked the Saturn IB rocket’s first stage onto Mobile Launcher-1 (ML-1), modified from its use to launch Saturn V rockets during the Apollo program with the addition of the milk stool pedestal. The milk stool, a 128-foot tall platform, allowed the Saturn IB to use the same Launch Umbilical Tower as the much larger Saturn V rocket at Launch Complex 39. The next day, workers lowered the second stage onto the first, followed by the Instrument Unit two days later. Finally, on Jan. 17 workers topped off the rocket with a boilerplate Apollo spacecraft while engineers continued testing the flight article in the MSOB.
The ASTP Apollo Command and Service Modules arrive at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. The ASTP Command Module arrives in KSC’s Manned Spacecraft Operations Building. The Command and Service Modules – CSM-111 – arrived at KSC from the Rockwell International plant in Downey, California, on Sept. 8, 1974, by C-5A Galaxy cargo plane. Rockwell had finished building the spacecraft in March 1970 and placed it in storage until July 1972. Modifications for ASTP took place between August 1972 and August 1974, following which Rockwell shipped the spacecraft to KSC. The sign on the shipping container bore the legend “From A to Soyuz – Apollo/Soyuz – Last and the Best.” Workers at KSC towed the modules to the MSOB for inspection and checkout, joined the two modules, and placed the combined spacecraft into a vacuum chamber.
The prime Apollo crew of Thomas Stafford, left, Vance Brand, and Donald “Deke” Slayton suit up in preparation for an altitude chamber test in the Command Module (CM). The astronauts inside the CM in the altitude chamber. In the MSOB, the prime and backup ASTP crews conducted tests of their spacecraft in an altitude chamber. After both crews completed simulated runs in December 1974, the prime crew of Stafford, Brand, and Slayton suited up, entered the CM inside the chamber, closed the hatch, and conducted an actual test on Jan. 14, with the chamber simulating altitudes of up to 220,000 feet. Two days later, the backup crew of Bean, Evans, and Lousma completed a similar test.
he backup Apollo crew of Alan Bean, left, Ronald Evans, and Jack Lousma suit up in preparation for an altitude chamber test in the Command Module (CM). Workers assist backup crewmember Lousma into the CM. To solve the problem of the Apollo and Soyuz spacecraft operating at different atmospheric pressures and compositions and using incompatible docking mechanisms, engineers designed a Docking Module (DM) that acted as both an airlock and a transfer tunnel and a Docking System (DS) that allowed the two nations’ spacecraft to physically join in space. NASA contracted with Rockwell International to build the DM. Engineers equipped one end of the DM with the standard Apollo probe-and-drogue docking mechanism and the other end with the androgynous system that linked up with its opposite half installed on the modified Soyuz spacecraft. During launch, the DM rested inside the Spacecraft Lunar Module (LM) Adaptor (SLA) atop the rocket’s upper stage, much like the LM during Apollo flights. Once in orbit, the astronauts separated the CSM from the upper stage, turned the spacecraft around, docked with the DM and pulled it free.
Workers lower the DM into Chamber B in the Space Environment Simulation Laboratory at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. Workers lower the DM into Chamber B in the Space Environment Simulation Laboratory at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. After extensive vacuum testing in Chamber B of the Space Environment Simulation Laboratory at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, the flight DM arrived at KSC on Oct. 29, 1974, and workers prepared it for more testing in a vacuum chamber in the MSOB. The flight DS arrived at KSC on Jan. 3, 1975, and two weeks later workers installed it on the DM. On Jan. 27, engineers lowered the DM onto the CM in the altitude chamber to conduct a mechanical docking test. Engineers conducted 10 days of joint tests of television and audio equipment to ensure systems compatibility.
Workers conduct a docking test of the Docking Module with the Command Module at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. NASA support astronaut Robert Overmyer, right, works with engineers during compatibility testing. To be continued…
Major events around the world in January 1975:
January 5 – Musical The Wiz opens on Broadway, runs for 1,672 performances.
January 6 – The game show Wheel of Fortune debuts on NBC.
January 8 – Ella Grasso of Connecticut becomes the first elected female governor in the U.S.
January 11 – The S-II second stage of the Saturn V rocket that launched Skylab reenters the Earth’s atmosphere over the Indian Ocean.
January 12 – The Pittsburg Steelers beat the Minnesota Vikings in Super Bowl IX, played in Tulane Stadium in New Orleans.
January 15 – Space Mountain opens at Disney World in Orlando.
January 18 – The Jeffersons premieres on CBS.
January 22 – Launch of the Landsat-2 Earth resources monitoring satellite.
January 30 – Ernő Rubik applies for a patent in Hungary for his Magic Cube, later known as Rubik’s Cube.
View the full article
-
By NASA
6 min read
Preparations for Next Moonwalk Simulations Underway (and Underwater)
In-person participants L-R standing: Dave Francisco, Joanne Kaouk, Dr. Richard Moon, Dr. Tony Alleman, Dr. Sean Hardy, Sarah Childress, Kristin Coffey, Dr. Ed Powers, Dr. Doug Ebersole, Dr. Steven Laurie, Dr. Doug Ebert; L-R seated: Dr. Alejandro Garbino, Dr. Robert Sanders, Dr. Kristi Ray, Dr. Mike Gernhardt, Dr. Joseph Dervay, Dr. Matt Makowski). Not pictured: Dr. Caroline Fife In June 2024, the NASA Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) Standards Team hosted an independent assessment working group to review the status and progress of research and clinical activities intended to mitigate the risk of decompression sickness (DCS) related to patent foramen ovale (PFO) during spaceflight and associated ground testing and human subject studies.
Decompression sickness (DCS) is a condition which results from dissolved gases (primarily nitrogen) forming bubbles in the bloodstream and tissues. It is usually experienced in conditions where there are rapid decreases in ambient pressure, such as in scuba divers, high-altitude aviation, or other pressurized environments. The evolved gas bubbles have various physiological effects and can obstruct the blood vessels, trigger inflammation, and damage tissue, resulting in symptoms of DCS. NASA presently classifies DCS into two categories: Type I DCS, which is less severe, typically leads to musculoskeletal symptoms including pain in the joints or muscles, or skin rash. Type II DCS is more severe and commonly results in neurological, inner ear, and cardiopulmonary symptoms. The risk of DCS in spaceflight presents during extravehicular activities (EVAs) in which astronauts perform mission tasks outside the spaceflight vehicle while wearing a pressurized suit at a lower pressure than the cabin pressure. DCS mitigation protocols based on strategies to reduce systemic nitrogen load are implemented through the combination of habitat environmental parameters, EVA suit pressure, and breathing gas procedures (prebreathe protocols) to achieve safe and effective mission operations. The pathophysiology of DCS has still not been fully elucidated since cases occur despite the absence of detected gas bubbles but includes right to left shunting of venous gas emboli (VGE) via several potential mechanisms, one of which is a Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO).
From: Dr. Schochet & Dr. Lie, Pediatric Pulmonologists
Reference OCHMO-TB-037 Decompression Sickness (DCS) Risk Mitigation technical brief for additional information.
A PFO is a shunt between the right atrium and the left atrium of the heart, which is a persisting remnant of a physiological communication present in the fetal heart. Post-natal increases in left atrial pressure usually force the inter-septal valve against the septum secundum and within the first 2 years of life, the septae permanently fuse due to the development of fibrous adhesions. Thus, all humans are born with a PFO and approximately 75% of PFOs fuse following childbirth. For the 25% of the population’s whose PFOs do not fuse, ~6% have what is considered by some to be a large PFO (> 2 mm). PFO diameter can increase with age. The concern with PFOs is that with a right to left shunt between the atria, venous emboli gas may pass from the right atrium (venous) to the left atrium (arterial) (“shunt”), thus by-passing the normal lung filtration of venous emboli which prevent passage to the arterial system. Without filtration, bubbles in the arterial system may lead to a neurological event such as a stroke. Any activity that increases the right atrium/venous pressure over the left atrium/arterial pressure (such as a Valsalva maneuver, abdominal compression) may further enable blood and/or emboli across a PFO/shunt.
From: Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences
The purpose of this working group was to review and provide analysis on the status and progress of research and clinical activities intended to mitigate the risk of PFO and DCS issues during spaceflight. Identified cases of DCS during NASA exploration atmosphere ground testing conducted in pressurized chambers led to the prioritization of the given topic for external review. The main goals of the working group included:
Quantification of any increased risk associated with the presence of a PFO during decompression protocols utilized in ground testing and spaceflight EVAs, as well as unplanned decompressions (e.g., cabin depressurization, EVA suit leak). Describe risks and benefits of PFO screening in astronaut candidates, current crewmembers, and chamber test subjects. What are potential risk reduction measures that could be considered if a person was believed to be at increased risk of DCS due to a PFO? What research and/or technology development is recommended that could help inform and/or mitigate PFO-related DCS risk? The working group took place over two days at NASA’s Johnson Space Center and included NASA subject matter experts and stakeholders, as well as invited external reviewers from areas including cardiology, hypobaric medicine, spaceflight medicine, and military occupational health. During the working group, participants were asked to review past reports and evidence related to PFOs and risk of DCS, materials and information regarding NASA’s current experience and practices, and case studies and subsequent decision-making processes. The working group culminated in an open-forum discussion where recommendations for current and future practices were conferred and subsequently summarized in a final summary report, available on the public NASA OCHMO Standards Team website.
The following key findings are the main take-aways from the OCHMO independent assessment:
In an extreme exposure/high-risk scenario, excluding individuals with a PFO and treating PFOs does not necessarily decrease the risk of DCS or create a ‘safe’ environment. It may create incremental differences and slightly reduce overall risk but does not make the risk zero. There are other physiological factors that also contribute to the risk of DCS that may have a larger impact (see 7.0 Other Physiological Factors in the findings section). Based on the available evidence and the risk of current decompression exposures (based on current NASA protocols and NASA-STD-3001 requirements to limit the risk of DCS), it is not recommended to screen for PFOs in any spaceflight or ground testing participants. The best strategy to reduce the risk of DCS is to create as safe an environment as possible in every scenario, through effective prebreathe protocols, safety, and the capability to rapidly treat DCS should symptoms occur. Based on opinion, no specific research is required at this time to further characterize PFOs with DCS and altitude exposure, due to the low risk and preference to institute adequate safe protocols and ensuring treatment availability both on the ground and in spaceflight. For engineering protocols conducted on the ground, it should be ensured that the same level of treatment capability (treatment chamber in the immediate vicinity of the testing) is provided as during research protocols. The ability to immediately treat a DCS case is critical in ensuring the safety of the test subjects. The full summary report includes detailed background information, discussion points from the working group, and conclusions and recommendations. The findings from the working group and resulting summary report will help to inform key stakeholders in decision-making processes for future ground testing and spaceflight operations with the main goal of protecting crew health and safety to ensure overall mission success.
Summary Report About the Author
Sarah D. Childress
Share
Details
Last Updated Dec 31, 2024 Related Terms
Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO) Human Health and Performance Humans in Space International Space Station (ISS) Explore More
2 min read Station Science Top News: Dec. 20, 2024
Article 2 weeks ago 4 min read Artemis II Core Stage Vertical Integration Begins at NASA Kennedy
Article 2 weeks ago 3 min read NASA, Axiom Space Change Assembly Order of Commercial Space Station
Article 2 weeks ago Keep Exploring Discover More Topics From NASA
Missions
Humans in Space
Climate Change
Solar System
View the full article
-
By European Space Agency
Don’t miss the final ESA Impact of the year!
Your interactive gateway to the most captivating stories and stunning visuals from ESA.
View the full article
-
By Space Force
The Space Force Personnel Management Act marks a significant step towards the evolving structure of the USSF by integrating and streamlining active-component Guardians and Air Force Reservists in space-focused career fields to offer both full- and part-time service options.
View the full article
-
-
Check out these Videos
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.