Misplaced Pages

Space Shuttle: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:48, 4 November 2013 editReatlas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers8,393 edits Undid revision 580118399 by Mdw0 (talk) Then make a suggestion.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:22, 6 January 2025 edit undoSjö (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers58,841 edits Undid revision 1267709984 by 2001:8F8:1737:276F:10E5:1F5:436B:7F96 (talk) Reverting unexplained content removalTag: Undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Partially reusable launch system and space plane}}
{{Redirect|STS}}
{{About|a spacecraft system used by NASA|space shuttles in general|spacecraft|and|spaceplane|the spaceplane component of the Space Shuttle|Space Shuttle orbiter}}
{{Two other uses|the NASA Space Transportation System vehicle|the associated NASA STS program|Space Shuttle program|other shuttles and aerospace vehicles|Spaceplane}}
{{featured article}}
{{Use American English|date=May 2020}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=November 2024}}
{{Infobox rocket {{Infobox rocket
| name = Space Shuttle
|image= STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg
| image = STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg
|caption= '']'' lifts off at the start of ].
| caption = '']'' lifts off at the start of the ] mission.
|name= Space Shuttle
| upright = 1.0
|function= Manned orbital launch and reentry
| function = Crewed orbital launch and reentry
|manufacturer= ] <br />]/] (SRBs) <br />]/] (ET) <br/>]/] (orbiter)
| manufacturer = {{ubl|]|]/] (SRBs)|]/] (ET)|]/] (orbiter) |class=manufacturer}}
|country-origin= United States of America
| pcost = US$211 billion (2012)
|height= 56.1 m
| cpl = US$450 million (2011)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html|publisher=NASA|title=Kennedy Space Center FAQ|access-date=July 13, 2022|date=August 3, 2017|last=Bray|first=Nancy|archive-date=November 2, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191102125052/https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
|alt-height= 184.2 ft
| country-origin = United States
|diameter= 8.7 m
| height = {{cvt|56.1|m}}
|alt-diameter= 28.5 ft
| diameter = {{cvt|8.7|m}}
|mass= 2,030 t
| mass = {{cvt|2030000|kg}}
|alt-mass= 4,470,000 lbm
| stages = 1½<ref name=jenkins/>{{rp|126, 140<!-- various other pages refereed to also. -->}}
|stages= 2
| capacities = {{Infobox rocket/payload
|LEO-payload= 24,400 kg
| location = ]
|alt-LEO= 53,600 lb
| altitude = {{cvt|204|km}}
|payload-location= ]
| mass = {{cvt|27500|kg}}
|payload= 3,810 kg
}}
|alt-payload= 8,390 lbm
{{Infobox rocket/payload
|payload2-location= ]
| location = ]
|payload2= 12,700 kg
| altitude = {{cvt|407|km}}
|alt-payload2= 28,000 lb
| mass = {{cvt|16050|kg}}
|payload3-location= Landing<ref name=woodcock>{{cite book|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=zopTAAAAMAAJ&q=Space+Shuttle+return+payload&dq=Space+Shuttle+return+payload&hl=en&ei=1C1-Tr-IMdC2tgeO_OFk&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCQ |title=Gordon R. Woodcock – '&#39;'Space stations and platforms'&#39;' (1986, 220 pages) – Snippet: "The present limit on Shuttle landing payload is 14400 kg. (32000 lb). This value applies to payloads intended for landing." |publisher=Google Books |accessdate=2012-04-17}}</ref>
}}
|payload3= 14,400 kg
{{Infobox rocket/payload
|alt-payload3= 32,000 lb<ref name=woodcock/>
| location = ]
|status= Retired
| mass = {{cvt|4940|kg}} with ]<ref name="iusb">{{cite web|url=http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/ius.htm|title=Inertial Upper Stage|publisher=Rocket and Space Technology|date=November 2017|access-date=June 21, 2020|archive-date=August 7, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807130821/http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/ius.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>
|sites= ], ]<br />], ] (unused)
}}
|launches=135
{{Infobox rocket/payload
|success= 134 successful launches<br> 133 successful re-entries
| location = ]
|fail= 2 (], '']'';<br>], '']'')
| mass = {{cvt|2270|kg}} with Inertial Upper Stage<ref name="iusb"/>
|partial= <!-- Partial Launch successes. -->
}}
|other_outcome=
{{Infobox rocket/payload
|payloads= ]s <br />] <br />]<small> (including ])</small><br />], ], ] <br />] <br />]
| location = ], returned
|first= ]
| kilos = {{cvt|14400|kg}}<ref name=woodcock>{{cite book|url=https://archive.org/details/spacestationspla00woo_l0q|url-access=registration|title=Space stations and platforms|author=Woodcock, Gordon R. |publisher=Orbit Book co.|year=1986|access-date=April 17, 2012|quote=The present limit on Shuttle landing payload is {{cvt|14400|kg}}. This value applies to payloads intended for landing.|isbn=978-0-89464-001-8}}</ref>
|last= ]
}}
|boosters= 2
| status = Retired
|boostername= ]
| sites = {{ubl|], ] & ]|], ] (unused)}}
|boosterengines= 1 ]
| launches = ]
|boosterthrust= 12.5 ] each, sea level liftoff
| success = 133{{efn|In this case, the number of successes is determined by the number of successful Space Shuttle missions.}}
|alt-boosterthrust= 2,800,000 ]
| fail = 2<br/>{{ubl|'']'' (]) |'']'' (]) |class=failures}}
|boosterSI= 269 s
|payloads = {{ubl|]s|]|]|'']''|'']''|'']''|]|]|]|]|class=payloads}}
|boostertime= 124 s
| first = 12 April 1981 (])
|boosterfuel= solid
| last = 21 July 2011 (])
|stage1name= ] plus ]
{{Infobox rocket/stage
|stage1engines= 3 ] located on Orbiter
| type = booster
|stage1thrust= 5.45220 MN total, sea level liftoff
| name = ]
|alt-stage1thrust= 1,225,704 lbf
| thrust = {{cvt|3000000|lbf|kN|order=flip|sigfig=2}}<!--at sea level-->
|stage1SI= 455 s
| total = {{cvt|6000000|lbf|kN|order=flip|sigfig=2}}<!--at sea level-->
|stage1time= 480 s
| SI = {{cvt|242|isp}}<ref name=SRB_largest/>
|stage1fuel= ]/]
| burntime = 124 seconds
|}}
| fuel = ]—]
| number = 2
}}
{{Infobox rocket/stage
| type = stage
| stageno = First
| name = ] + ]
| engines = 3 × ] engines on Orbiter
| thrust = {{cvt|1750|kN}} at sea level<ref>{{cite web|last1=Kyle|first1=Ed|title=STS Data Sheet|url=http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sts.html|website=spacelaunchreport.com|access-date=May 4, 2018|archive-date=August 7, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807201200/http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sts.html|url-status=usurped}}</ref>
| total = {{cvt|5250|kN}}
| SI = {{cvt|455|isp}}
| burntime = 480 seconds
| fuel = ] / ] in external tank
}}
}}
{{Spaceflight sidebar}}


The '''Space Shuttle''' was a crewed, partially reusable ]al ] operated by the U.S. ] (NASA). Its official program name was ''Space Transportation System'', taken from a 1969 plan for ] of which it was the only item funded for development.<ref name=autogenerated1></ref> The first of four orbital test flights occurred in 1981, leading to operational flights beginning in 1982. It was used on a total of 135 missions from 1981 to 2011, launched from the ] (KSC) in Florida. Operational missions launched numerous satellites, interplanetary probes, and the ] (HST); conducted science experiments in orbit; and participated in construction and servicing of the ]. The '''Space Shuttle''' is a retired, partially ] ]al spacecraft system operated from 1981 to 2011 by the U.S. ] (NASA) as part of the ]. Its official program name was ] (STS), taken from the 1969 plan led by U.S. Vice President ] for a system of reusable spacecraft where it was the only item funded for development.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|163–166}}<ref name=space_task_group_1969>{{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|date=1969|access-date=March 22, 2020|archive-date=January 14, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114031850/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/taskgrp.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.nasa.gov/history/SP-4219/Chapter12.html | title=The Space Shuttle's First Flight: STS-1 }}</ref>


The first (]) of four orbital test flights occurred in 1981, leading to operational flights (]) beginning in 1982. Five complete Space Shuttle orbiter vehicles were built and flown on a total of 135 missions from 1981 to 2011. They launched from the ] (KSC) in ]. Operational missions launched numerous ]s, ]s, and the ] (HST), conducted science experiments in orbit, participated in the ] with Russia, and participated in the construction and servicing of the ] (ISS). The Space Shuttle fleet's total mission time was 1,323 days.<ref name="ShuttleByNumbers">{{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|access-date=June 18, 2014|author=Malik, Tarik|archive-date=October 16, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016035228/http://www.space.com/12376-nasa-space-shuttle-program-facts-statistics.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
Shuttle components included the ] (OV), a pair of recoverable ] (SRBs), and the expendable ] (ET) containing ] and ]. The Shuttle was ] like a conventional rocket, with the two SRBs operating in parallel with the OV's three ], which were fueled from the ET. The SRBs were jettisoned before the vehicle reached orbit, and the ET was jettisoned just before ] using the orbiter's two ] (OMS) engines. At the conclusion of the mission, the orbiter fired its OMS to drop out of orbit and ]. The orbiter ] to a runway landing on ] at ] in California or at the ] at the KSC. After the landings at Edwards, the orbiter was flown back to KSC on the ], a specially modified Boeing 747.


Space Shuttle components include the ] (OV) with three clustered ] ] main engines, a pair of recoverable ] (SRBs), and the expendable ] (ET) containing ] and ]. The Space Shuttle was ], like a conventional rocket, with the two SRBs operating in parallel with the orbiter's three ], which were fueled from the ET. The SRBs were jettisoned before the vehicle reached orbit, while the main engines continued to operate, and the ET was jettisoned after main engine cutoff and just before ], which used the orbiter's two ] (OMS) engines. At the conclusion of the mission, the orbiter fired its OMS to deorbit and ]. The orbiter was protected during reentry by its ] tiles, and it ] as a ] to a runway landing, usually to the ] at KSC, Florida, or to ] in ], California. If the landing occurred at Edwards, the orbiter was flown back to the KSC atop the ] (SCA), a specially modified ] designed to carry the shuttle above it.
The first orbiter, '']'', was built purely for ] and had no capability to fly into orbit. Four fully operational orbiters were initially built: '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. Of these, ''Challenger'' and ''Columbia'' were lost in mission accidents in 1986 and 2003, respectively, in which a total of fourteen astronauts were killed. A fifth operational orbiter, '']'', was built in 1991 to replace ''Challenger''. The Space Shuttle was retired from service upon the conclusion of ''Atlantis''{{'}} final flight on July 21, 2011.


The first orbiter, '']'', was built in 1976 and used in ] (ALT), but had no orbital capability. Four fully operational orbiters were initially built: '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']''. Of these, two were lost in mission accidents: ] and ], with a total of 14 astronauts killed. A fifth operational (and sixth in total) orbiter, '']'', was built in 1991 to replace ''Challenger''. The three surviving operational vehicles were retired from service following ''Atlantis''{{'}}s ] on July 21, 2011. The U.S. relied on the Russian ] to transport astronauts to the ISS from the last Shuttle flight until the launch of the ] mission in May 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Smith|first=Yvette|date=June 1, 2020|title=Demo-2: Launching Into History|url=http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/demo-2-launching-into-history|access-date=February 18, 2021|website=NASA|archive-date=February 21, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210221225633/https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/demo-2-launching-into-history/|url-status=live}}</ref>
==Overview==


== Design and development ==
The Space Shuttle was a partially reusable<ref name=ft20110930>{{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='' rockets typically are used just once, although some partly reusable versions have been developed, such as the Space Shuttle.''}}</ref> ] vehicle capable of reaching ], commissioned and operated by the US ] (NASA) from 1981 to 2011. It resulted from shuttle design studies conducted by NASA and the US Air Force in the 1960s and was first proposed for development as part of an ambitious second-generation ] (STS) of space vehicles to follow the ] in a September 1969 report of a Space Task Group headed by Vice President ] to President ]. Post-Apollo NASA budgeting realities impelled Nixon to withhold support of all system components except the Shuttle, to which NASA applied the STS name.<ref name=autogenerated1 />
===Historical background===
In the late 1930s, the German government launched the "]" project, and ]'s idea, together with mathematician ], was a winged rocket called the ] (German for "silver bird").<ref>{{Cite web|last=Wall|first=Mike|date=June 28, 2011|title=How the Space Shuttle Was Born|url=https://www.space.com/12085-nasa-space-shuttle-history-born.html|access-date=March 30, 2023|website=Space.com|archive-date=March 30, 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230330205213/https://www.space.com/12085-nasa-space-shuttle-history-born.html|url-status=live}}</ref> During the 1950s, the ] proposed using a reusable piloted glider to perform military operations such as reconnaissance, satellite attack, and air-to-ground weapons employment. In the late 1950s, the Air Force began developing the partially reusable ]. The Air Force collaborated with ] on the Dyna-Soar and began training six pilots in June 1961. The rising costs of development and the prioritization of ] led to the cancellation of the Dyna-Soar program in December 1963. In addition to the Dyna-Soar, the Air Force had conducted a study in 1957 to test the feasibility of reusable boosters. This became the basis for the ], a fully reusable spacecraft that was never developed beyond the initial design phase in 1962–1963.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle">{{cite book |last=Williamson |first=Ray |title=Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume IV: Accessing Space |chapter=Developing the Space Shuttle |publisher=NASA |date=1999 |location=Washington, D.C. |chapter-url=https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4407/vol4/cover.pdf |access-date=April 23, 2019 |archive-date=May 31, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200531171908/https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4407/vol4/cover.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>{{rp|162–163}}


Beginning in the early 1950s, NASA and the Air Force collaborated on developing ] to test aircraft that primarily generated lift from their fuselages instead of wings, and tested the ], ], ], ], ], and the ]. The program tested aerodynamic characteristics that would later be incorporated in design of the Space Shuttle, including unpowered landing from a high altitude and speed.<ref name="lifting_body_report">{{cite book |url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980169231.pdf |title=Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story |date=January 1, 1997 |access-date=April 25, 2019 |publisher=NASA |first=R. Dale |last=Reed |isbn=9780160493904 |author-link=R. Dale Reed |archive-date=December 18, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141218030338/https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980169231.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>{{rp|142}}<ref name="shuttle_manual">{{cite book |last=Baker |first=David |author-link=David Baker (author) |title=NASA Space Shuttle: Owners' Workshop Manual |publisher=] |date=April 2011 |location=Somerset, UK |isbn=978-1-84425-866-6}}</ref>{{rp|16–18}}
The vehicle consisted of a ] for orbit and re-entry, fueled by expendable liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks, with reusable strap-on solid booster rockets. The ] of four orbital test flights occurred in 1981, leading to operational flights beginning in 1982, all launched from the ], Florida. The system was retired from service in 2011 after 135 missions<ref>{{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}}</ref> on July 8, 2011, with Space Shuttle Atlantis performing that 135th launch - the final launch of the three-decade Shuttle program.<ref name="latimes">{{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}}</ref> The program ended after Atlantis landed at the Kennedy Space Center on July 21, 2011. Major missions included launching numerous satellites and interplanetary probes,<ref name=coolt>{{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}}</ref> conducting space science experiments, and servicing and construction of space stations. The first ] vehicle, named '']'', was built for the initial ] phase and lacked engines, heat shield,{{Citation needed|date=April 2013}} and other equipment necessary for orbital flight. A total of five operational orbiters were built, and of these, two were destroyed in accidents.


===Design process===
It was used for orbital space missions by NASA, the ], the ], Japan, and Germany.<ref name=Interavia85/><ref name=life/> The United States funded Shuttle development and operations except for the Spacelab modules used on ] and ]{{mdash}}sponsored by Germany.<ref name=Interavia85> 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. .."</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.damec.dk/vis.asp?id=44 |title=Columbia Spacelab D2 – STS-55 |publisher=Damec.dk |accessdate= December 4, 2010}}</ref><ref>(Retrieved December 4, 2010)</ref><ref> (Google Books Retrieved December 4, 2010)</ref><ref> (Google Books Quote, "SM 22: the 1st German-funded Spacelab mission made use of the ESA Space Sled.")</ref> ] was partially funded by Japan.<ref name=life>. .</ref>
{{main|Space Shuttle design process}}


On September 24, 1966, as the Apollo space program neared its design completion, NASA and the Air Force released a joint study concluding that a new vehicle was required to satisfy their respective future demands and that a partially reusable system would be the most cost-effective solution.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|164}} The head of the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, ], announced the plan for a reusable shuttle on August 10, 1968. NASA issued a ] (RFP) for designs of the Integral Launch and Reentry Vehicle (ILRV) on October 30, 1968.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Guilmartin JF, Mauer JW |title=A shuttle chronology 1964–1973: Abstract concepts to letter contracts (5 vols.) |publisher=NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX. |year=1988 |location=Houston, TX. |publication-date=1988}}</ref> Rather than award a contract based upon initial proposals, NASA announced a phased approach for the Space Shuttle contracting and development; Phase A was a request for studies completed by competing aerospace companies, Phase B was a competition between two contractors for a specific contract, Phase C involved designing the details of the spacecraft components, and Phase D was the production of the spacecraft.<ref name=lindroos>{{cite web|url=http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/index.htm|title=Introduction to Future Launch Vehicle Plans |last=Lindroos|first=Marcus|publisher=Pmview.com|date=June 15, 2001|access-date=April 25, 2019|archive-date=July 17, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190717122307/http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/index.htm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name= shuttle_manual />{{rp|19–22}}
At launch, it consisted of the "stack", including the dark orange ] (ET);<ref name="et_paint1">. NASA, August 16, 1999. Quote: "...orange spray-on foam used to insulate...."</ref><ref name="et_paint2">. NASA, December 28, 2004. Quote: "The gigantic, rust-colored external tank..."</ref> two white, slender ] (SRBs); and the ], which contained the ] and payload. Some payloads were launched into higher orbits with either of two different upper stages developed for the STS (single-stage ] or two-stage ]). The Space Shuttle was stacked in the ], and the stack mounted on a mobile launch platform held down by four ]<ref name=nuts0>{{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}}</ref> on each SRB, which were detonated at launch.<ref>{{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}}</ref>


In December 1968, NASA created the Space Shuttle Task Group to determine the optimal design for a reusable spacecraft, and issued study contracts to ], ], ], and ]. In July 1969, the Space Shuttle Task Group issued a report that determined the Shuttle would support short-duration crewed missions and space station, as well as the capabilities to launch, service, and retrieve satellites. The report also created three classes of a future reusable shuttle: Class I would have a reusable orbiter mounted on expendable boosters, Class II would use multiple expendable rocket engines and a single propellant tank (stage-and-a-half), and Class III would have both a reusable orbiter and a reusable booster. In September 1969, the Space Task Group, under the leadership of U.S. Vice President ], issued a report calling for the development of a space shuttle to bring people and cargo to low Earth orbit (LEO), as well as a ] for transfers between orbits and the Moon, and a reusable ] for deep space travel.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|163–166}}<ref name=space_task_group_1969 />
The Shuttle stack launched vertically like a conventional rocket. It lifted off under the power of its two SRBs and three ], 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 ] 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&nbsp;mph (7.8&nbsp;km/s), necessary for low Earth orbit, the main engines were shut down. The ET, attached by two frangible nuts<ref name="nuts">{{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.}}</ref> was then jettisoned to burn up in the atmosphere.<ref name=etuse/> After jettisoning the external tank, the ] (OMS) engines were used to adjust the orbit.


After the release of the Space Shuttle Task Group report, many aerospace engineers favored the Class III, fully reusable design because of perceived savings in hardware costs. ], a NASA engineer who had worked to design the ] capsule, patented a design for a two-stage fully recoverable system with a straight-winged orbiter mounted on a larger straight-winged booster.<ref name="faget_bio">{{cite web |last= Allen |first= Bob |title= Maxime A. Faget |publisher= NASA |date= August 7, 2017 |url= https://www.nasa.gov/langley/hall-of-honor/maxime-a-faget |access-date= April 24, 2019 |archive-date= December 19, 2019 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20191219065416/https://www.nasa.gov/langley/hall-of-honor/maxime-a-faget/ |url-status= live }}</ref><ref name="faget_patent">{{cite patent |country=United States |number=3,702,688 |status= |title=Space Shuttle Vehicle and System |pubdate=November 14, 1972 |gdate= |fdate=January 4, 1971 |pridate= |inventor=] |invent1= |invent2= |assign1= |assign2= |class= |url=https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/eb/f9/60/879c61bb6df70a/US3702688.pdf }} {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190424100336/https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/eb/f9/60/879c61bb6df70a/US3702688.pdf |date=April 24, 2019 }}</ref> The Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory argued that a straight-wing design would not be able to withstand the high thermal and aerodynamic stresses during reentry, and would not provide the required cross-range capability. Additionally, the Air Force required a larger payload capacity than Faget's design allowed. In January 1971, NASA and Air Force leadership decided that a reusable delta-wing orbiter mounted on an expendable propellant tank would be the optimal design for the Space Shuttle.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|166}}
]
The orbiter carried ]s and payloads such as satellites or space station parts into low Earth orbit, the Earth's upper atmosphere or ].<ref name="atmos">{{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 = http://web.archive.org/web/20071013232332/http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/atmosphere.html |archivedate= October 13, 2007}}</ref> 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 ] and also the capture and return of large payloads back to Earth.


After they established the need for a reusable, heavy-lift spacecraft, NASA and the Air Force determined the design requirements of their respective services. The Air Force expected to use the Space Shuttle to launch large satellites, and required it to be capable of lifting {{convert|65000|lb|kg|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=on|abbr=on}} to an eastward LEO or {{convert|40000|lb|kg|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=on|abbr=on}} into a ]. The satellite designs also required that the Space Shuttle have a {{convert|15|by|60|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=on|abbr=on}} payload bay. NASA evaluated the ] and ] engines from the ], and determined that they were insufficient for the requirements of the Space Shuttle; in July 1971, it issued a contract to ] to begin development on the ] engine.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|165–170}}
When the orbiter's space mission was complete, it fired its OMS thrusters to drop out of orbit and re-enter the lower atmosphere.<ref name="atmos"/> During descent, the orbiter passed through different layers of the atmosphere and decelerated from ] speed primarily by ]. In the lower atmosphere and landing phase, it was more like a ] but with ] (RCS) thrusters and ]-controlled hydraulically actuated flight surfaces controlling its descent. It landed on a long runway as a spaceplane. 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 ] at low altitudes, and it transitioned during re-entry from using RCS thrusters at very high altitudes to flight surfaces in the lower atmosphere.


NASA reviewed 29 potential designs for the Space Shuttle and determined that a design with two side boosters should be used, and the boosters should be reusable to reduce costs.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|167}} NASA and the Air Force elected to use ] because of the lower costs and the ease of refurbishing them for reuse after they landed in the ocean. In January 1972, President ] approved the Shuttle, and NASA decided on its final design in March. The development of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) remained the responsibility of Rocketdyne, and the contract was issued in July 1971, and updated SSME specifications were submitted to Rocketdyne in that&nbsp;April<!-- 1972-->.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lethbridge |first1=Cliff |title=SPACE SHUTTLE |url=https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/space-shuttle-program-history/#:~:text=The%20first%20goal%20of%20the,by%2012%20to%2024%20people. |website=Spaceline.org |access-date=March 31, 2023 |archive-date=March 31, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230331193408/https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/space-shuttle-program-history/#:~:text=The%20first%20goal%20of%20the,by%2012%20to%2024%20people. |url-status=live }}</ref> That&nbsp;August<!-- 1972-->, NASA awarded the contract to build the orbiter to North American Rockwell. In August 1973, the external tank contract to ], and in November the solid-rocket booster contract to ].<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|170–173}}
==Early history==
{{Further|Space Shuttle program|Space Shuttle design process}}
] ] in January 1972, three months before Congress approved funding for the Shuttle program]]


=== Development ===
The formal design of what became the Space Shuttle began with the "Phase A" contract design studies issued in the late 1960s. Conceptualization ], before the ] of the 1960s. One of the places the concept of a spacecraft returning from space to a horizontal landing originated was within ], in 1954, in the form of an ] research experiment later named the ]. The NACA proposal was submitted by ].
] undergoing installation of its ceramic tiles]]


On June 4, 1974, Rockwell began construction on the first orbiter, OV-101, dubbed Constitution, later to be renamed ]. ''Enterprise'' was designed as a test vehicle, and did not include engines or heat shielding. Construction was completed on September 17, 1976, and ''Enterprise'' was moved to the ] to begin testing.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|173}}<ref name="enterprise_overview">{{cite web |last= Howell |first= Elizabeth |title= Enterprise: The Test Shuttle |publisher= Space.com |date= October 9, 2012 |url= https://www.space.com/17983-space-shuttle-enterprise.html |access-date= April 24, 2019 |archive-date= August 6, 2020 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200806144504/https://www.space.com/17983-space-shuttle-enterprise.html |url-status= live }}</ref> Rockwell constructed the ], which was a structural truss mounted to the ET with three RS-25 engines attached. It was tested at the ] (NSTL) to ensure that the engines could safely run through the launch profile.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II-163}} Rockwell conducted mechanical and thermal stress tests on Structural Test Article (STA)-099 to determine the effects of aerodynamic and thermal stresses during launch and reentry.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|I-415}}
In 1958, the X-15 concept further developed into proposal to launch an X-15 into space, and another ] ] proposal, named ], as well as variety of aerospace plane concepts and studies. ] 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" indicated "horizontal landing").


The beginning of the development of the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine was delayed for nine months while ] challenged the contract that had been issued to Rocketdyne. The first engine was completed in March 1975, after issues with developing the first throttleable, reusable engine. During engine testing, the RS-25 experienced multiple nozzle failures, as well as broken turbine blades. Despite the problems during testing, NASA ordered the nine RS-25 engines needed for its three orbiters under construction in May 1978.<ref name=dev_space_shuttle />{{rp|174–175}}
In the mid-1960s, the ] conducted classified ] 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&nbsp;I" vehicle with expendable boosters, followed by slower development of a "Class&nbsp;II" semi-reusable design and possible "Class&nbsp;III" fully reusable design later. In 1967, ] held a one-day symposium at NASA headquarters to study the options. Eighty people attended and presented a wide variety of designs, including earlier US Air Force designs such as the X-20 Dyna-Soar.


NASA experienced significant delays in the development of the Space Shuttle's ]. Previous NASA spacecraft had used ] heat shields, but those could not be reused. NASA chose to use ceramic tiles for thermal protection, as the shuttle could then be constructed of lightweight ], and the tiles could be individually replaced as needed. Construction began on ] on March 27, 1975, and it was delivered to the KSC on March 25, 1979.<ref name=dev_space_shuttle />{{rp|175–177}} At the time of its arrival at the KSC, ''Columbia'' still had 6,000 of its 30,000 tiles remaining to be installed. However, many of the tiles that had been originally installed had to be replaced, requiring two years of installation before ''Columbia'' could fly.<ref name=shuttle_manual />{{rp|46–48}}
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 ] and ] jointly issued a ] (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 ], 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 was recoverable solid rocket boosters, and the top stage used an expendable external tank.<ref name=lindroos>{{cite web|url=http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/index.htm |title=INTRODUCTION TO FUTURE LAUNCH VEHICLE PLANS [1963–2001&#93; Updated 6/15/2001, by Marcus Lindroos |publisher=Pmview.com |date=June 15, 2001 |accessdate=2012-04-17}}</ref>


On January 5, 1979, NASA commissioned a second orbiter. Later that month, Rockwell began converting STA-099 to OV-099, later named ]. On January 29, 1979, NASA ordered two additional orbiters, OV-103 and OV-104, which were named ] and ]. Construction of OV-105, later named ], began in February 1982, but NASA decided to limit the Space Shuttle fleet to four orbiters in 1983. After the ], NASA resumed production of ''Endeavour'' in September 1987.<ref name=shuttle_manual />{{rp|52–53}}
In 1969, President ] decided to ] 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 ] proved that an unpowered spaceplane could re-enter Earth's atmosphere for a horizontal landing.


===Testing===
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 ] program.<ref name="sl98"/> Spacelab would provide a multidisciplinary orbital space laboratory and additional space equipment for the Shuttle.<ref name="sl98"/>
]]]
] launching on ]{{efn|] and ] were the only Space Shuttle missions that used a white fire-retardant coating on the external tank. Subsequent missions did not use the latex coating to reduce the mass, and the external tank appeared orange.<ref name=shuttle_manual />{{rp|48}}}}]]

After it arrived at Edwards AFB, ''Enterprise'' underwent flight testing with the ], a Boeing 747 that had been modified to carry the orbiter. In February 1977, ''Enterprise'' began the ] (ALT) and underwent captive flights, where it remained attached to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft for the duration of the flight. On August 12, 1977, ''Enterprise'' conducted its first glide test, where it detached from the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and landed at Edwards AFB.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|173–174}} After four additional flights, ''Enterprise'' was moved to the ] (MSFC) on March 13, 1978. ''Enterprise'' underwent shake tests in the Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Test, where it was attached to an external tank and solid rocket boosters, and underwent vibrations to simulate the stresses of launch. In April 1979, ''Enterprise'' was taken to the KSC, where it was attached to an external tank and solid rocket boosters, and moved to ]. Once installed at the launch pad, the Space Shuttle was used to verify the proper positioning of the launch complex hardware. ''Enterprise'' was taken back to California in August 1979, and later served in the development of the ] at ] in 1984.<ref name=shuttle_manual />{{rp|40–41}}

On November 24, 1980, ''Columbia'' was mated with its external tank and solid-rocket boosters, and was moved to LC-39 on December&nbsp;29<!--, 1980-->.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-22}} The first Space Shuttle mission, ], would be the first time NASA performed a crewed first-flight of a spacecraft.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-24}} On April 12, 1981, the Space Shuttle launched for the first time, and was piloted by ] and ]. During the two-day mission, Young and Crippen tested equipment on board the shuttle, and found several of the ceramic tiles had fallen off the top side of the ''Columbia''.<ref name=into_the_black>{{cite book |last = White |first = Rowland |title = Into the Black |publisher = Touchstone |date = 2016 |location = New York |isbn = 978-1-5011-2362-7}}</ref>{{rp|277–278}} NASA coordinated with the Air Force to use satellites to image the underside of ''Columbia'', and determined there was no damage.<ref name=into_the_black />{{rp|335–337}} ''Columbia'' reentered the atmosphere and landed at Edwards AFB on April 14.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-24}}

NASA conducted three additional test flights with ''Columbia'' in 1981 and 1982. On July 4, 1982, ], flown by ] and ], landed on a concrete runway at Edwards AFB. President ] and his wife ] met the crew, and delivered a speech. After STS-4, NASA declared its Space Transportation System (STS) operational.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|178–179}}<ref>{{cite web
|last = Dumoulin
|first = Jim
|title = Space Transportation System
|publisher = NASA
|date = August 31, 2000
|url = https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html
|access-date = June 21, 2020
|archive-date = February 5, 2021
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210205085519/https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html
|url-status = live
}}</ref>


==Description== ==Description==
The Space Shuttle was the first operational orbital spacecraft designed for ]. Each Space Shuttle orbiter was designed for a projected lifespan of 100 launches or ten years of operational life, although this was later extended.<ref name="sivolella">{{cite book |last= Sivolella |first= David |title= The Space Shuttle Program: Technologies and Accomplishments |publisher= ] |date= 2017 |location= Hemel Hempstead |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=7nknDwAAQBAJ&pg=PP1 |doi= 10.1007/978-3-319-54946-0 |isbn= 978-3-319-54944-6 |access-date= October 17, 2020 |archive-date= April 17, 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210417052324/https://books.google.com/books?id=7nknDwAAQBAJ&pg=PP1 |url-status= live }}</ref>{{rp|11}} At launch, it consisted of the ], which contained the ] and payload, the ] (ET), and the two ] (SRBs).<ref name=jenkins>{{cite book |last=Jenkins |first=Dennis R. |title=Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System |publisher=Voyageur Press |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-9633974-5-4 }}</ref>{{rp|363}}
]


Responsibility for the Space Shuttle components was spread among multiple NASA field centers. The KSC 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 ] was responsible for launch, landing, and turnaround operations for polar orbits (though this was never used). The ] (JSC) served as the central point for all Shuttle operations and the MSFC was responsible for the main engines, external tank, and solid rocket boosters. The ] handled main engine testing, and the ] managed the global tracking network.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/centers.html |title=NASA Centers And Responsibilities |publisher=NASA |last=Dumoulin |first=Jim |date=August 31, 2000 |access-date=March 22, 2020 |archive-date=June 21, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200621082408/https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/centers.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
The Space Shuttle was the first operational orbital spacecraft designed for ]. It carried different payloads to low Earth orbit, provided crew rotation and supplies for the ] (ISS), and performed servicing missions. 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 ], who had also overseen the ], ], and ] 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 ]. The militarily specified 1,085&nbsp;nm 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 ] by developing a spacecraft with reusable components.


===Orbiter===
Each Space Shuttle was a ] composed of three main assemblies: the reusable OV, the expendable ET, and the two reusable SRBs.<ref>. NASA.</ref> 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.
{{main|Space Shuttle orbiter}}
]'', '']'', '']'', '']'', and '']'']]


The orbiter had design elements and capabilities of both a rocket and an aircraft to allow it to launch vertically and then land as a glider.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|365}} Its three-part fuselage provided support for the crew compartment, cargo bay, flight surfaces, and engines. The rear of the orbiter contained the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME), which provided thrust during launch, as well as the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS), which allowed the orbiter to achieve, alter, and exit its orbit once in space. Its double-]s were {{convert|60|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=on|abbr=on}} long, and were swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Each wing had an inboard and outboard ] to provide flight control during reentry, along with a flap located between the wings, below the engines to control ]. The orbiter's ] was swept backwards at 45° and contained a ] that could split to act as a ].<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|382–389}} The vertical stabilizer also contained a two-part ] system to slow the orbiter after landing. The orbiter used ] with a nose landing gear and two main landing gear, each containing two tires. The main landing gear contained two brake assemblies each, and the nose landing gear contained an electro-hydraulic steering mechanism.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|408–411}}
]
Five operational OVs were built: ''Columbia'' (OV-102), '']'' (OV-099), ''Discovery'' (OV-103), ''Atlantis'' (OV-104), and ''Endeavour'' (OV-105). A mock-up, '']'', currently stands at the entrance to the Astronaut Hall of Fame. An additional craft, '']'' (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). ''Challenger'' ] 73 seconds after launch in 1986, and ''Endeavour'' was built as a replacement from structural spare components. ''Columbia'' ] over Texas during re-entry in 2003. Building ''Endeavour'' cost about US$1.7&nbsp;billion. A Space Shuttle launch cost around $450&nbsp;million.<ref>{{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}}</ref>


====Crew====
] has estimated that the ] cost about US$170&nbsp;billion (2008 dollars) through early 2008; the average cost per flight was about US$1.5&nbsp;billion.<ref name=duggins>, 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.</ref> Two missions were paid for by Germany, Spacelab ] and ] (D for ''Deutschland'') with a payload control center in ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.damec.dk/vis.asp?id=44 |title=Columbia Spacelab D2 – STS-55 |publisher=Damec.dk |accessdate=August 7, 2010}}</ref><ref> {{Dead link|date=July 2010}}</ref> D1 was the first time that control of a manned STS mission payload was not in U.S. hands.<ref name=Interavia85/>
The Space Shuttle crew varied per mission. They underwent rigorous testing and training to meet the ] for their roles. The crew was divided into three categories: Pilots, Mission Specialists, and Payload Specialists. Pilots were further divided into two roles: the Space Shuttle Commander, who would seat in the forward left seat and the Space Shuttle Pilot who would seat in the forward right seat.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Space Shuttle Astronaut Qualifications {{!}} Spaceline |url=https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/us-astronaut-selection-drafts-and-qualifications/space-shuttle-astronaut-qualifications/ |access-date=April 1, 2023 |language=en-US |archive-date=March 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230324065946/https://www.spaceline.org/united-states-manned-space-flight/us-astronaut-selection-drafts-and-qualifications/space-shuttle-astronaut-qualifications/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The test flights, STS-1 through STS-4 only had two members each, the commander and pilot. The commander and the pilot were both qualified to fly and land the orbiter. The on-orbit operations, such as experiments, payload deployment, and EVAs, were conducted primarily by the mission specialists who were specifically trained for their intended missions and systems. Early in the Space Shuttle program, NASA flew with payload specialists, who were typically systems specialists who worked for the company paying for the payload's deployment or operations. The final payload specialist, ], flew on ], and future non-pilots were designated as mission specialists. An astronaut flew as a crewed spaceflight engineer on both ] and ] to serve as a military representative for a ] payload. A Space Shuttle crew typically had seven astronauts, with ] flying with eight.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-21}}


====Crew compartment====
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 ] originally built to assemble the Apollo Saturn V rocket, were commonly referred to as the "stack".<ref></ref>
The crew compartment comprised three decks and was the pressurized, habitable area on all Space Shuttle missions. The flight deck consisted of two seats for the commander and pilot, as well as an additional two to four seats for crew members. The mid-deck was located below the flight deck and was where the galley and crew bunks were set up, as well as three or four crew member seats. The mid-deck contained the airlock, which could support two astronauts on an ] (EVA), as well as access to pressurized research modules. An equipment bay was below the mid-deck, which stored environmental control and waste management systems.<ref name= shuttle_manual />{{rp|60–62}}<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|365–369}}


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, ], until the loss of ''Challenger'', the crew wore one-piece light blue ] flight suits and partial-pressure helmets. After the ''Challenger'' disaster, the crew members wore the Launch Entry Suit (LES), a partial-pressure version of the high-altitude pressure suits with a helmet. In 1994, the LES was replaced by the full-pressure ] (ACES), which improved the safety of the astronauts in an emergency situation. ''Columbia'' originally had modified ] ]s installed for the ] and first four missions, but these were disabled after STS-4 and removed after ].<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|370–371}}
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 US Air Force at the ] was responsible for launch, landing and turnaround operations for polar orbits (though this was never used), the ] served as the central point for all Shuttle operations, the ] was responsible for the main engines, external tank, and solid rocket boosters, the ] handled main engine testing, and the ] managed the global tracking network.<ref>{{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}}</ref>


]'' was the first Shuttle to fly with a ], on ].]]
===Orbiter vehicle===
The flight deck was the top level of the crew compartment and contained the flight controls for the orbiter. The commander sat in the front left seat, and the pilot sat in the front right seat, with two to four additional seats set up for additional crew members. The instrument panels contained over 2,100 displays and controls, and the commander and pilot were both equipped with a ] (HUD) and a ] (RHC) to ] the engines during powered flight and fly the orbiter during unpowered flight. Both seats also had ] controls, to allow rudder movement in flight and nose-wheel steering on the ground.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|369–372}} The orbiter vehicles were originally installed with the Multifunction ] Display System (MCDS) to display and control flight information. The MCDS displayed the flight information at the commander and pilot seats, as well as at the aft seating location, and also controlled the data on the HUD. In 1998, ''Atlantis'' was upgraded with the Multifunction Electronic Display System (MEDS), which was a ] upgrade to the flight instruments that replaced the eight MCDS display units with 11 multifunction colored digital screens. MEDS was flown for the first time in May 2000 on ], and the other orbiter vehicles were upgraded to it. The aft section of the flight deck contained windows looking into the payload bay, as well as an RHC to control the ] during cargo operations. Additionally, the aft flight deck had monitors for a ] to view the cargo bay.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|372–376}}
{{Main|Space Shuttle orbiter}}
]'' deploys the ] before landing on a selected runway.]]


The mid-deck contained the crew equipment storage, sleeping area, galley, medical equipment, and hygiene stations for the crew. The crew used modular lockers to store equipment that could be scaled depending on their needs, as well as permanently installed floor compartments. The mid-deck contained a port-side hatch that the crew used for entry and exit while on Earth.<ref name="jenkins2016"/>{{rp|II–26–33}}
The orbiter resembles a conventional aircraft, with double-] swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Its vertical stabilizer's leading edge is swept back at a 50° angle. The four ]s, mounted at the trailing edge of the wings, and the ]/speed brake, attached at the trailing edge of the stabilizer, with the body flap, controlled the orbiter during descent and landing.


==== Airlock ====
The orbiter's payload bay measures {{convert|15|by|60|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us}}, comprising most of the ]. Information declassified in 2011 showed that the payload bay was designed specifically to accommodate the ] spy satellite operated by the ].<ref>{{cite web|last=Guillemette |first=Roger |url=http://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}}</ref> Two mostly symmetrical lengthwise payload bay doors hinged on either side of the bay comprise its entire top. Payloads were generally loaded horizontally into the bay while the orbiter is oriented vertically on the launch pad and unloaded vertically in the near-weightless orbital environment by the orbiter's robotic ] (under astronaut control), EVA astronauts, or under the payloads' own power (as for satellites attached to a rocket "upper stage" for deployment.)
The ] is a structure installed to allow movement between two spaces with different gas components, conditions, or pressures. Continuing on the mid-deck structure, each orbiter was originally installed with an internal airlock in the mid-deck. The internal airlock was installed as an external airlock in the payload bay on ''Discovery'', ''Atlantis'', and ''Endeavour'' to improve docking with ] and the ], along with the ].<ref name="jenkins2016">{{cite book |last= Jenkins |first= Dennis R. |title= Space Shuttle: Developing an Icon – 1972–2013|isbn=978-1-58007-249-6 |publisher= Specialty Press |date= 2016}}</ref>{{rp|II–26–33}} The airlock module can be fitted in the mid-bay, or connected to it but in the payload bay.{{r|shuttle_manual|p=81}} With an internal cylindrical volume of {{convert|1.60|m|ftin|abbr=off}} diameter and {{convert|2.11|m|ftin|abbr=off}} in length, it can hold two suited astronauts. It has two D-shaped hatchways {{convert|1.02|m|in|abbr=on}} long (diameter), and {{convert|0.91|m|in|abbr=on}} wide.{{r|shuttle_manual|p=82}}


====Flight systems====
Three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) are mounted on the orbiter's aft fuselage in a triangular pattern. The engine nozzles can ] 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 is made primarily from ] ], although the engine structure is made primarily from ] alloy.
The orbiter was equipped with an ] system to provide information and control during atmospheric flight. Its avionics suite contained three ]s, three ]s, three ]s, three ]s, two ]s, two ]s, three ]s, two ]s, and two ] ]. During reentry, the crew deployed two ] once they were traveling slower than Mach 5. The orbiter had three ] (IMU) that it used for guidance and navigation during all phases of flight. The orbiter contains two ]s to align the IMUs while in orbit. The star trackers are deployed while in orbit, and can automatically or manually align on a star. In 1991, NASA began upgrading the inertial measurement units with an ] (INS), which provided more accurate location information. In 1993, NASA flew a ] receiver for the first time aboard ]. In 1997, Honeywell began developing an integrated GPS/INS to replace the IMU, INS, and TACAN systems, which first flew on ] in August 2007.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|402–403}}


While in orbit, the crew primarily communicated using one of four ] radios, which provided both voice and data communications. Two of the S&nbsp;band radios were ] ]s, and could transmit and receive information. The other two S&nbsp;band radios were ] ]s and were used to transmit data to NASA. As S&nbsp;band radios can operate only within their ], NASA used the ] and the ] ground stations to communicate with the orbiter throughout its orbit. Additionally, the orbiter deployed a high-bandwidth ] radio out of the cargo bay, which could also be utilized as a rendezvous radar. The orbiter was also equipped with two ] radios for communications with ] and astronauts conducting EVA.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|403–404}}
The operational orbiters built were OV-102 ''Columbia'', OV-099 ''Challenger'', OV-103 ''Discovery'', OV-104 ''Atlantis'', and OV-105 ''Endeavour''.<ref>{{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 }}</ref>


]
<center><gallery>
The Space Shuttle's ] control system was entirely reliant on its main computer, the Data Processing System (DPS). The DPS controlled the flight controls and thrusters on the orbiter, as well as the ET and SRBs during launch. The DPS consisted of five general-purpose computers (GPC), two magnetic tape mass memory units (MMUs), and the associated sensors to monitor the Space Shuttle components.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|232–233}} The original GPC used was the IBM ], which used a separate ] (CPU) and input/output processor (IOP), and ] ]. From 1991 to 1993, the orbiter vehicles were upgraded to the AP-101S, which improved the memory and processing capabilities, and reduced the volume and weight of the computers by combining the CPU and IOP into a single unit. Four of the GPCs were loaded with the Primary Avionics Software System (PASS), which was Space Shuttle-specific software that provided control through all phases of flight. During ascent, maneuvering, reentry, and landing, the four PASS GPCs functioned identically to produce quadruple redundancy and would error check their results. In case of a software error that would cause erroneous reports from the four PASS GPCs, a fifth GPC ran the Backup Flight System, which used a different program and could control the Space Shuttle through ascent, orbit, and reentry, but could not support an entire mission. The five GPCs were separated in three separate bays within the mid-deck to provide redundancy in the event of a cooling fan failure. After achieving orbit, the crew would switch some of the GPCs functions from guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) to systems management (SM) and payload (PL) to support the operational mission.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|405–408}} The Space Shuttle was not launched if its flight would run from December to January, as its flight software would have required the orbiter vehicle's computers to be reset at the year change. In 2007, NASA engineers devised a solution so Space Shuttle flights could cross the year-end boundary.<ref name="YERO">{{cite web |last=Bergin |first=Chris |title=NASA solves YERO problem for Shuttle |url=http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5026|website=NASASpaceflight.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080418182718/http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5026 |archive-date=April 18, 2008 |date= February 19, 2007 |access-date=December 22, 2007}}</ref>
File:Atlantis on Shuttle Carrier Aircraft.jpg|] transported by a ] ] (SCA), 1998 (NASA)
File:Space Shuttle Transit.jpg|Space Shuttle ''Endeavour'' being transported by a Shuttle Carrier Aircraft
File:STS-79 rollout.jpg|An overhead view of ''Atlantis'' as it sits atop the ] (MLP) before ]. Two Tail Service Masts (TSMs) to either side of the orbiter's tail provide umbilical connections for propellant loading and electrical power.
File:Sound_suppression_water_system_test_at_KSC_Launch_Pad_39A.jpg|Water is released onto the mobile launcher platform on ] at the start of a sound suppression system test in 2004. During launch, {{convert|350000|USgal|L}} of water are poured onto the pad in 41 seconds.<ref>{{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}}</ref>
</gallery></center>


Space Shuttle missions typically brought a portable general support computer (PGSC) that could integrate with the orbiter vehicle's computers and communication suite, as well as monitor scientific and payload data. Early missions brought the ], one of the first laptop computers, as the PGSC, but later missions brought ] and ] laptops.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|408}}<ref name="GRiD">{{cite web |url=http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1139464298 |title=Pioneering the Laptop: Engineering the GRiD Compass |access-date=October 25, 2007 |publisher=The Computer History Museum |year=2006 |author=The Computer History Museum |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071204034101/http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1139464298 |archive-date=December 4, 2007}}</ref>
===External tank===
{{Main|Space Shuttle external tank}}


====Payload bay====
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 for incorporation into a space station).<ref name=etuse>. NASA, August 23–27, 1982.</ref><ref name=etuse2>. astronautix.com</ref>
] attached to the RMS servicing the ] during ]]]
]'' in orbit in 2010. Image shows the payload bay and the extended ].]]


The payload bay comprised most of the orbiter vehicle's ], and provided the cargo-carrying space for the Space Shuttle's payloads. It was {{convert|60|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=on|abbr=on}} long and {{convert|15|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=on|abbr=on}} wide, and could accommodate cylindrical payloads up to {{convert|15|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=on|abbr=on}} in diameter. Two payload bay doors hinged on either side of the bay, and provided a relatively airtight seal to protect payloads from heating during launch and reentry. Payloads were secured in the payload bay to the attachment points on the ]s. The payload bay doors served an additional function as radiators for the orbiter vehicle's heat, and were opened upon reaching orbit for heat rejection.<ref name=shuttle_manual/>{{rp|62–64}}
===Solid rocket boosters===
{{Main|Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster}}


The orbiter could be used in conjunction with a variety of add-on components depending on the mission. This included orbital laboratories,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II-304, 319}} boosters for launching payloads farther into space,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II-326}} the Remote Manipulator System (RMS),<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II-40}} and optionally the EDO pallet to extend the mission duration.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II-86}} To limit the fuel consumption while the orbiter was docked at the ISS, the ] (SSPTS) was developed to convert and transfer station power to the orbiter.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II-87–88}} The SSPTS was first used on STS-118, and was installed on ''Discovery'' and ''Endeavour''.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-366–368}}
Two solid rocket boosters (SRBs) each provided 12.5&nbsp;million newtons (2.8&nbsp;million lbf) of thrust at liftoff,<ref name="Columbia Accid Report D.7">. NASA, October 2003.</ref> 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|sp=us}}, and then deployed parachutes and landed in the ocean to be recovered.<ref>{{cite web|title=NASA Space Shuttle Columbia Launch|url=http://www.asterpix.com/console?as=1203639196321-20328515dc }}{{dead link|date=August 2010}}</ref> The SRB cases were made of steel about ½&nbsp;inch (13&nbsp;mm) thick.<ref>{{cite web|author=NASA|url=http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appl2b.htm|title=Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident|publisher=NASA|accessdate=2011-06-30}}</ref> The solid rocket boosters were re-used many times; the casing used in ] engine testing in 2009 consisted of motor cases that had been flown, collectively, on 48 Shuttle missions, including STS-1.<ref>. NASA, July 20, 2009.</ref>


===Orbiter add-ons=== ====Remote Manipulator System====
{{main|Canadarm}}
The orbiter could be used in conjunction with a variety of add-ons depending on the mission. This included orbital laboratories (], ]), boosters for launching payloads farther into space (], ]), and other functions, such as provided by ], ]s, or ] (RMS). An upper stage called ] (Orbital Science Corp. TOS-21) was also used once.<ref>{{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}}</ref> 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 ].<ref name=NASA28>{{cite web|url=http://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}}</ref>


The Remote Manipulator System (RMS), also known as Canadarm, was a mechanical arm attached to the cargo bay. It could be used to grasp and manipulate payloads, as well as serve as a mobile platform for astronauts conducting an EVA. The RMS was built by the Canadian company ] and was controlled by an astronaut inside the orbiter's flight deck using their windows and closed-circuit television. The RMS allowed for six degrees of freedom and had six joints located at three points along the arm. The original RMS could deploy or retrieve payloads up to {{convert|65000|lb|kg|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|abbr=on}}, which was later improved to {{convert|586000|lb|kg|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|abbr=on}}.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|384–385}}
<center><gallery>
File:Mplm in shuttle.jpg|]
File:1989 s34 Galileo Deploy2.jpg|IUS deploying with ]
File:SBS-3 with PAM-D stage.jpg|] with satellite
File:EDO pallet.jpg|] being installed
File:STS-9 Spacelab 1.jpg|] in orbit
File:1996 s72 Scott EVA.jpg|]
File:Spacehab S107e05359.jpg|]
</gallery></center>


====Spacelab==== ====Spacelab====
{{main|Spacelab}} {{main|Spacelab}}
] ] in orbit on ]]]


The Spacelab module was a European-funded pressurized laboratory that was carried within the payload bay and allowed for scientific research while in orbit. The Spacelab module contained two {{convert|9|ft|m|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}} segments that were mounted in the aft end of the payload bay to maintain the center of gravity during flight. Astronauts entered the Spacelab module through a {{convert|8.72|or|18.88|ft|m|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}} tunnel that connected to the airlock. The Spacelab equipment was primarily stored in pallets, which provided storage for both experiments as well as computer and power equipment.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|434–435}} Spacelab hardware was flown on 28 missions through 1999 and studied subjects including astronomy, microgravity, radar, and life sciences. Spacelab hardware also supported missions such as Hubble Space Telescope (HST) servicing and space station resupply. The Spacelab module was tested on STS-2 and STS-3, and the first full mission was on STS-9.<ref name=NASA28>{{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 |last=Dooling |first=Dave |publisher=NASA |date=March 15, 1999 |access-date=April 23, 2020 |archive-date=December 24, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181224003720/https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/msad15mar99_1/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
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.<ref name=NASA28/> Supported by a modular system of pressurized modules, pallets, and systems, Spacelab missions executed on multidisciplinary science, orbital logistics, and international cooperation.<ref name=NASA28/> Over 29 missions flew on subjects ranging from astronomy, microgravity, radar, and life sciences, to name a few.<ref name=NASA28/> Spacelab hardware also supported missions such as Hubble (HST) servicing and space station resupply.<ref name=NASA28/> STS-2 and STS-3 provided testing, and the first full mission was Spacelab-1 (]) launched on November 28, 1983.<ref name=NASA28/>


====RS-25 engines====
Spacelab formally began in 1973, after a meeting in Brussels, Belgium, by European heads of state.<ref name="sl98">{{cite web|url=http://www.esa.int/esaCP/Pr_10_1998_i_EN.html |title=ESA – '&#39;'N° 10-1998: 25 years of Spacelab – Go for Space Station'&#39;' |publisher=Esa.int |accessdate=2012-04-17}}</ref> Within the decade, Spacelab went into orbit and provided Europe and the United States with an orbital workshop and hardware system.<ref name="sl98"/> International cooperation, science, and exploration were realized on Spacelab.<ref name=NASA28/>
{{main|RS-25}}
] engines with the two ] (OMS) pods during ]]]


Three RS-25 engines, also known as the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME), were mounted on the orbiter's aft fuselage in a triangular pattern. The engine nozzles could gimbal ±10.5° in pitch, and ±8.5° in ] during ascent to change the direction of their thrust to steer the Shuttle. The ] reusable engines were independent of the orbiter vehicle and would be removed and replaced in between flights. The RS-25 is a staged-combustion cycle cryogenic engine that used liquid oxygen and hydrogen and had a higher chamber pressure than any previous liquid-fueled rocket. The original main combustion chamber operated at a maximum pressure of {{convert|3285|psi|bar|sigfig=4|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}}. The engine nozzle is {{convert|113|in|cm|sigfig=3|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}} tall and has an interior diameter of {{convert|90.3|in|cm|sigfig=3|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}}. The nozzle is cooled by 1,080 interior lines carrying liquid hydrogen and is thermally protected by insulative and ablative material.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II–177–183}}
===Flight systems===
The Shuttle was one of the earliest craft to use a computerized ] digital ]. This means no mechanical or hydraulic linkages connected the pilot's control stick to the control surfaces or reaction control system thrusters.


The RS-25 engines had several improvements to enhance reliability and power. During the development program, Rocketdyne determined that the engine was capable of safe reliable operation at 104% of the originally specified thrust. To keep the engine thrust values consistent with previous documentation and software, NASA kept the originally specified thrust at 100%, but had the RS-25 operate at higher thrust. RS-25 upgrade versions were denoted as Block I and Block II. 109% thrust level was achieved with the Block II engines in 2001, which reduced the chamber pressure to {{convert|3010|psi|bar|sigfig=4|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off}}, as it had a larger ] area. The normal maximum throttle was 104 percent, with 106% or 109% used for mission aborts.<ref name=shuttle_manual />{{rp|106–107}}
A concern with digital fly-by-wire systems is reliability. Considerable research went into the Shuttle computer system. The Shuttle used five identical redundant IBM 32-bit general purpose computers (GPCs), model ], constituting a type of ]. 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).<ref name="LogicD">{{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. |coauthors=Robert Tate and Hiram C. Thompson}}</ref><ref name="ibm">{{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=]}}</ref>


====Orbital Maneuvering System====
] software package.]]
{{main|Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System}}


The Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) consisted of two aft-mounted ] engines and the associated propellant tanks. The AJ10 engines used ] (MMH) oxidized by ] (N<sub>2</sub>O<sub>4</sub>). The pods carried a maximum of {{convert|4718|lb|kg|order=flip|abbr=on|sigfig=4|sp=us}} of MMH and {{convert|7773|lb|kg|order=flip|abbr=on|sigfig=4|sp=us}} of N<sub>2</sub>O<sub>4</sub>. The OMS engines were used after main engine cut-off (MECO) for orbital insertion. Throughout the flight, they were used for orbit changes, as well as the deorbit burn prior to reentry. Each OMS engine produced {{convert|6087|lbf|N|order=flip|abbr=on|sigfig=4|sp=us}} of thrust, and the entire system could provide {{convert|1000|ft/s|m/s|order=flip|abbr=on|sigfig=3|sp=us}} of ].<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II–80}}
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.


====Thermal protection system====
The four general-purpose computers operated essentially in lockstep, checking each other. If 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. In the unlikely case that two out of four computers simultaneously failed (a two-two split), one group was to be picked at random.
{{main|Space Shuttle thermal protection system}}


The orbiter was protected from heat during reentry by the thermal protection system (TPS), a ] protective layer around the orbiter. In contrast with previous US spacecraft, which had used ablative heat shields, the reusability of the orbiter required a multi-use heat shield.<ref name=shuttle_manual />{{rp|72–73}} During reentry, the TPS experienced temperatures up to {{convert|3000|F|C|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}}, but had to keep the orbiter vehicle's aluminum skin temperature below {{convert|350|F|C|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}}. The TPS primarily consisted of four types of tiles. The nose cone and leading edges of the wings experienced temperatures above {{convert|2300|F|C|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}}, and were protected by reinforced carbon-carbon tiles (RCC). Thicker RCC tiles were developed and installed in 1998 to prevent damage from ], and were further improved after RCC damage caused in the ]. Beginning with ], the orbiter vehicles were equipped with the wing leading edge impact detection system to alert the crew to any potential damage.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II–112–113}} The entire underside of the orbiter vehicle, as well as the other hottest surfaces, were protected with tiles of high-temperature reusable surface insulation, made of ]-coated ] fibers that trapped heat in air pockets and redirected it out. Areas on the upper parts of the orbiter vehicle were coated in tiles of white low-temperature reusable surface insulation with similar composition, which provided protection for temperatures below {{convert|1200|F|C|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}}. The payload bay doors and parts of the upper wing surfaces were coated in reusable ] felt surface insulation or in ], as the temperature there remained below {{convert|700|F|C|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}}.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|395}}
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 ] software was developed under totally different conditions from public commercial software: the number of code lines was tiny compared to a public commercial software, 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.


===External tank===
The software for the Shuttle computers was written in a high-level language called ], somewhat similar to ]. It is specifically designed for a ] embedded system environment.
{{main|Space Shuttle external tank}}
] after separation from the orbiter. The scorch mark near the front end of the tank is from the SRB separation motors.]]
The Space Shuttle external tank (ET) carried the propellant for the Space Shuttle Main Engines, and connected the orbiter vehicle with the solid rocket boosters. The ET was {{convert|153.8|ft|m|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}} tall and {{convert|27.6|ft|m|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}} in diameter, and contained separate tanks for liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. The liquid oxygen tank was housed in the nose of the ET, and was {{convert|49.3|ft|m|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}} tall. The liquid hydrogen tank comprised the bulk of the ET, and was {{convert|96.7|ft|m|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}} tall. The orbiter vehicle was attached to the ET at two umbilical plates, which contained five propellant and two electrical umbilicals, and forward and aft structural attachments. The exterior of the ET was covered in orange spray-on foam to allow it to survive the heat of ascent.{{r|jenkins|p=421–422}}


The ET provided propellant to the Space Shuttle Main Engines from liftoff until main engine cutoff. The ET separated from the orbiter vehicle 18 seconds after engine cutoff and could be triggered automatically or manually. At the time of separation, the orbiter vehicle retracted its umbilical plates, and the umbilical cords were sealed to prevent excess propellant from venting into the orbiter vehicle. After the bolts attached at the structural attachments were sheared, the ET separated from the orbiter vehicle. At the time of separation, gaseous oxygen was vented from the nose to cause the ET to tumble, ensuring that it would break up upon reentry. The ET was the only major component of the Space Shuttle system that was not reused, and it would travel along a ballistic trajectory into the Indian or Pacific Ocean.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|422}}
The IBM AP-101 computers originally had about 424 kilobytes of ] each. The CPU could process about 400,000 instructions per second. They had no hard disk drive, and loaded software from magnetic tape cartridges.


For the first two missions, STS-1 and ], the ET was covered in {{convert|595|lb|kg|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}} of white fire-retardant latex paint to provide protection against damage from ultraviolet radiation. Further research determined that the orange foam itself was sufficiently protected, and the ET was no longer covered in latex paint beginning on STS-3.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II-210}} A light-weight tank (LWT) was first flown on STS-6, which reduced tank weight by {{convert|10300|lb|kg|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}}. The LWT's weight was reduced by removing components from the hydrogen tank and reducing the thickness of some skin panels.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|422}} In 1998, a super light-weight ET (SLWT) first flew on ]. The SLWT used the 2195 aluminum-lithium alloy, which was 40% stronger and 10% less dense than its predecessor, 2219 aluminum-lithium alloy. The SLWT weighed {{convert|7500|lb|kg|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}} less than the LWT, which allowed the Space Shuttle to deliver heavy elements to ISS's high inclination orbit.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|423–424}}
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&nbsp;million instructions per second). The memory was changed from magnetic core to semiconductor with battery backup.


===Solid Rocket Boosters===
Early Shuttle missions, starting in November 1983, took along the ], 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.<ref name="GRiD">{{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}}</ref> NASA was one of its main customers.<ref name="GRiDNASA">{{cite web|url=http://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}}</ref>
{{main|Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster}}
]]]


The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) provided 71.4% of the Space Shuttle's thrust during liftoff and ascent, and were the largest ]s ever flown.<ref name=SRB_largest>{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html |title=Solid Rocket Boosters |publisher=NASA |date=March 5, 2006 |last=Dunbar |first=Brian |access-date=July 19, 2021 |archive-date=April 6, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130406193019/http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Each SRB was {{convert|149.2|ft|m|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=2}} tall and {{convert|12.2|ft|m|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=2}} wide, weighed {{convert|150000|lb|kg|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=3}}, and had a steel exterior approximately {{convert|.5|in|mm|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=2}} thick. The SRB's subcomponents were the solid-propellant motor, nose cone, and rocket nozzle. The solid-propellant motor comprised the majority of the SRB's structure. Its casing consisted of 11 steel sections which made up its four main segments. The nose cone housed the forward separation motors and the parachute systems that were used during recovery. The rocket nozzles could gimbal up to 8° to allow for in-flight adjustments.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|425–429}}
===Orbiter markings and insignia===
The ] used on the Space Shuttle Orbiter is ].<ref>{{cite video |date= September 12, 2007 |title=] |medium= Documentary }}</ref>


The rocket motors were each filled with a total {{convert|1106640|lb|kg|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=2}} of solid rocket propellant (]+]), and joined in the ] (VAB) at KSC.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|425–426}} In addition to providing thrust during the first stage of launch, the SRBs provided structural support for the orbiter vehicle and ET, as they were the only system that was connected to the ] (MLP).<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|427}} At the time of launch, the SRBs were armed at T−5&nbsp;minutes, and could only be electrically ignited once the RS-25 engines had ignited and were without issue.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|428}} They each provided {{convert|2800000|lbf|kN|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=3}} of thrust, which was later improved to {{convert|3000000|lbf|kN|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=3}} beginning on ].<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|425}} After expending their fuel, the SRBs were ] approximately two minutes after launch at an altitude of approximately {{convert|150000|ft|km|sigfig=2|abbr=on|order=flip}}. Following separation, they deployed drogue and main parachutes, landed in the ocean, and were recovered by the crews aboard the ships ] and ].<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|430}} Once they were returned to Cape Canaveral, they were cleaned and disassembled. The rocket motor, igniter, and nozzle were then shipped to Thiokol to be refurbished and reused on subsequent flights.<ref name=shuttle_manual />{{rp|124}}
The prototype orbiter ''Enterprise'' originally had a ] 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 ] 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 SRBs underwent several redesigns throughout the program's lifetime. ] and ] used SRBs {{convert|5000|lb|kg|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=2}} lighter due to walls that were {{convert|.004|in|mm|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=2}} thinner, but were determined to be too thin to fly safely. Subsequent flights until ] used cases that were {{convert|.003|in|mm|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=2}} thinner than the standard-weight cases, which reduced {{convert|4000|lb|kg|abbr=on|order=flip|sigfig=2}}. After the ''Challenger'' disaster as a result of an ] failing at low temperature, the SRBs were redesigned to provide a constant seal regardless of the ambient temperature.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|425–426}}
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.


===Support vehicles===
''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.
]


The Space Shuttle's operations were supported by vehicles and infrastructure that facilitated its transportation, construction, and crew access. The ]s carried the MLP and the Space Shuttle from the VAB to the launch site.<ref name="crawler">{{cite web |url=https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/crawler.html |title=Crawler-Transporter |publisher=NASA |date=April 21, 2003 |access-date=June 18, 2020 |archive-date=June 1, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200601012639/https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/facilities/crawler.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The ] (SCA) were two modified ]s that could carry an orbiter on its back. The original SCA (N905NA) was first flown in 1975, and was used for the ] and ferrying the orbiter from Edwards AFB to the KSC on all missions prior to 1991. A second SCA (N911NA) was acquired in 1988, and was first used to transport ''Endeavour'' from the factory to the KSC. Following the retirement of the Space Shuttle, N905NA was put on display at the JSC, and N911NA was put on display at the ] in ].<ref name="jenkins2016"/>{{rp|I–377–391}}<ref name="joe_davies">{{cite web |title=Joe Davies Heritage Airpark |publisher=] |url=https://www.cityofpalmdale.org/DocumentCenter/View/265/Joe-Davies-Heritage-Airpark-Brochure-PDF |access-date=June 18, 2020 |archive-date=August 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807082227/https://www.cityofpalmdale.org/DocumentCenter/View/265/Joe-Davies-Heritage-Airpark-Brochure-PDF |url-status=live }}</ref> The ] (CTV) was a modified airport ] that was used to assist astronauts to egress from the orbiter after landing, where they would undergo their post-mission medical checkups.<ref name="ctv">{{cite web |last=Chowdhury |first=Abul |title=Crew Transport Vehicle |publisher=NASA |date=October 10, 2018 |url=https://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/Hardware/hardw/873 |access-date=June 18, 2020 |archive-date=August 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807103823/https://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/Hardware/hardw/873 |url-status=live }}</ref> The ] transported astronauts from the crew quarters in the Operations and Checkout Building to the launch pad on launch day.<ref name="astrovan">{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/behindscenes/astrovan.html |title=Catching a Ride to Destiny |publisher=NASA |first=Cheryl L. |last=Mansfield |date=July 15, 2008 |access-date=June 18, 2020 |archive-date=June 9, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090609095623/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/behindscenes/astrovan.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The ] comprised three locomotives that transported SRB segments from the ] in ] to the KSC.<ref name="railroad">{{cite web |title=The NASA Railroad |publisher=NASA |date=2007 |url=https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/192935main_RRtrain08.pdf |access-date=June 18, 2020 |archive-date=August 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807073843/https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/192935main_RRtrain08.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
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 ], during the 1986–88 hiatus when the shuttle fleet was grounded following the ], but retained its original wing markings until its last overhaul (after ]), and its unique black wing "chines" for the remainder of its operational life.


==Mission profile==
Beginning in 1998, the flight vehicles' markings were modified to incorporate the NASA ]. 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 ] 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.
===Launch preparation===
{{see also|Launch commit criteria}}
]]]


The Space Shuttle was prepared for launch primarily in the VAB at the KSC. The SRBs were assembled and attached to the external tank on the MLP. The orbiter vehicle was prepared at the ] (OPF) and transferred to the VAB, where a crane was used to rotate it to the vertical orientation and mate it to the external tank.<ref name= shuttle_manual />{{rp|132–133}} Once the entire stack was assembled, the MLP was carried for {{convert|3.5|mi|km|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}} to ] by one of the ]s.<ref name= shuttle_manual />{{rp|137}} After the Space Shuttle arrived at one of the two launchpads, it would connect to the Fixed and Rotation Service Structures, which provided servicing capabilities, payload insertion, and crew transportation.<ref name= shuttle_manual />{{rp|139–141}} The crew was transported to the launch pad at T−3&nbsp;hours and entered the orbiter vehicle, which was closed at T−2&nbsp;hours.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–8}} Liquid oxygen and hydrogen were loaded into the external tank via umbilicals that attached to the orbiter vehicle, which began at T−5&nbsp;hours&nbsp;35&nbsp;minutes. At T−3&nbsp;hours&nbsp;45&nbsp;minutes, the hydrogen fast-fill was complete, followed 15&nbsp;minutes later by the oxygen tank fill. Both tanks were slowly filled up until the launch as the oxygen and hydrogen evaporated.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II–186}}
===Upgrades===
]'' was the first Shuttle to fly with a ], on ]. (composite image)]]
The Space Shuttle was initially developed in the 1970s,<ref name="shuttle_sale">{{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=] |accessdate=January 15, 2010}}</ref> 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 ], which is similar to those of contemporary airliners. With the coming of the ISS, the orbiter's internal airlocks 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 ] considered precipitation, temperatures, cloud cover, lightning forecast, wind, and humidity.<ref name="weather launch criteria">{{cite web |url=https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2003/release-20030128.html |last=Diller |first=George |author-link=George Diller |date=May 20, 1999 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807074521/https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2003/release-20030128.html |title= Space Shuttle weather launch commit criteria and KSC end of mission weather landing criteria |access-date=May 1, 2020 |work=KSC Release No. 39-99 |publisher=NASA |department=] (KSC) |archive-date=August 7, 2020}}</ref> The Space Shuttle was not launched under conditions where it could have been struck by ], as its exhaust plume could have triggered lightning by providing a current path to ground after launch, which occurred on ].<ref name="chaikin">{{cite book |last=Chaikin |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Chaikin |title=A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts |publisher=] |date=2007 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E043uAEACAAJ&q=a+man+on+the+moon |isbn=978-0-14-311235-8 |access-date=October 17, 2020 |archive-date=April 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417071628/https://books.google.com/books?id=E043uAEACAAJ&q=a+man+on+the+moon |url-status=live }}</ref>{{rp|239}} The NASA Anvil Rule for a Shuttle launch stated that an ] could not appear within a distance of {{convert|10|nmi|km|lk=in|order=flip|abbr=on}}.<ref name="anvil">{{cite web |last=Oblack |first=Rachelle |title=The Anvil Rule: How NASA Keeps Its Shuttles Safe form Thunderstorms |website=Thoughtco.com |date=March 5, 2018 |url=https://www.thoughtco.com/anvil-cloud-rule-3444263 |access-date=September 17, 2018 |archive-date=June 8, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200608064339/https://www.thoughtco.com/anvil-cloud-rule-3444263 |url-status=live }}</ref> The Shuttle Launch Weather Officer monitored conditions until the final decision to scrub a launch was announced. In addition to the weather at the launch site, conditions had to be acceptable at one of the ] and the SRB recovery area.<ref name="weather launch criteria" /><ref name="sts121_blog">{{cite web |title=NASA's Launch Blog – Mission STS-121 |publisher=NASA |date=July 1, 2006 |url=https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sts-121/launch-vlcc_070106.html |access-date=May 1, 2020 |archive-date=May 24, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170524123552/https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sts-121/launch-vlcc_070106.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
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, ] 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 ], 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.<ref name="aerospaceweb">{{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}}</ref> Additional weight was saved by removing some of the internal "stringers" in the hydrogen tank that proved unnecessary. The resulting "light-weight external tank" has been used on the vast majority of Shuttle missions. ] saw the first flight of the "super light-weight external tank". This version of the tank is made of the 2195 aluminum-lithium alloy. It weighs 3.4 metric tons (7,500&nbsp;lb) less than the last run of lightweight tanks. As the Shuttle was not flown unmanned, each of these improvements was "tested" on operational flights.

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

] with the two ] (OMS) pods, and the ] above.]]

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 ]. 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&nbsp;billion.<ref>{{cite web |author=Encyclopedia Astronautica |url=http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm |title=Shuttle |publisher=Encyclopedia Astronautica}}{{dead link|date=August 2010}}</ref> 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 US Air Force developed their own much lighter single-piece SRB design using a filament-wound system, but this too was canceled.

] was delayed in 1995, when ]s 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.<ref>{{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}}</ref> The delicate nature of the foam insulation had been the cause of damage to the ], 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 ], 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&nbsp;million per seat.<ref name=david>{{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}}</ref>

On the first four Shuttle missions, astronauts wore modified US Air Force high-altitude full-pressure suits, which included a full-pressure helmet during ascent and descent. From the fifth flight, ], until the loss of ''Challenger'', one-piece light blue ] 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 ] (ACES), which resembled the ] 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 ] (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 ].

===Technical data===
]
]
]
] (drawn to scale).]]
]

'''Orbiter specifications'''<ref name="tech">{{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=0-9633974-5-1}}</ref> (for ''Endeavour'', OV-105)
*Length: {{convert|122.17|ft|m|abbr=on|sigfig=5}}
*Wingspan: {{convert|78.06|ft|m|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
*Height: {{convert|56.58|ft|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
*Empty weight: {{convert|172000|lb|kg|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}<ref>{{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}}</ref>
*Gross liftoff weight (Orbiter only): {{convert|240000|lb|kg|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}
*Maximum landing weight: {{convert|230000|lb|kg|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}
*Payload to Landing (Return Payload): 32,000&nbsp;lb (14,400&nbsp;kg)<ref name=woodcock/>
*Maximum payload: {{convert|55250|lb|kg|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
*Payload to LEO: {{convert|53600|lb|kg|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
*Payload to LEO @ 51.6° ] (ISS):
*Payload to GTO: {{convert|8390|lb|kg|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
*Payload to Polar Orbit: {{convert|28000|lb|kg|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
*Note launch payloads modified by External Tank (ET) choice (ET, LWT, or SLWT)
*Payload bay dimensions: {{convert|15|by|59|ft|m|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}
*Operational altitude: {{convert|100|to|520|nmi|km mi|lk=in|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}
*Speed: {{convert|7743|m/s|km/h mph|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
*Crossrange: {{convert|1085|nmi|km mi|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
*Main Stage (SSME with external tank)
**Engines: Three Rocketdyne Block II SSMEs, each with a sea level ] of {{convert|393800|lbf|MN|abbr=on|sigfig=4}} at 104% power <!--393,800 lbf per reference listed above.-->
**Thrust (at liftoff, sea level, 104% power, all 3 engines): {{convert|1181400|lbf|MN|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
**Specific impulse: 455 s
**Burn time: 480 s
**Fuel: Liquid Hydrogen/Liquid Oxygen
*]
**Engines: 2 OMS Engines
**Thrust: {{convert|53.4|kN|lbf|abbr=on|sigfig=3}} combined total vacuum thrust
**Specific impulse: 316 s
**Burn time: 150–250 s typical burn; 1250 s deorbit burn
**Fuel: MMH/N2O4
*Crew: Varies.
::The earliest Shuttle flights had the minimum crew of two; many later missions a crew of five. By program end, typically seven people would fly: (], ], several ]s, one of whom (MS-2) acted as the ] starting with STS-9 in 1983). On two occasions, eight astronauts have flown (], ]). Eleven people could be accommodated in an emergency mission (see ]).

'''External tank specifications''' (for SLWT)
*Length: {{convert|46.9|m|ft|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}
*Diameter: {{convert|8.4|m|ft|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}
*Propellant volume: {{convert|2025|m3|USgal|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}
*Empty weight: {{convert|26535|kg|lb|abbr=on|sigfig=5}}
*Gross liftoff weight (for tank): {{convert|756000|kg|lb|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}

'''Solid Rocket Booster specifications'''
*Length: {{convert|45.46|m|ft|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}<ref name="Jenkins_3rd">{{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=0-9633974-5-1}}</ref>
*Diameter: {{convert|3.71|m|ft|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}<ref name="Jenkins_3rd"/>
*Empty weight (per booster): {{convert|68000|kg|lb|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}<ref name="Jenkins_3rd"/>
*Gross liftoff weight (per booster): {{convert|571000|kg|lb|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}<ref name=STS_prop_systems>, p. 153. NASA, June 26, 1990.</ref>
*Thrust (at liftoff, sea level, per booster): {{convert|12.5|MN|lbf|abbr=on|lk=on|sigfig=2}}<ref name="Columbia Accid Report D.7"/>
*Specific impulse: 269 s
*Burn time: 124 s

'''System Stack specifications'''
*Height: {{convert|56|m|ft|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}
*Gross liftoff weight: {{convert|2000000|kg|lb|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}
*Total liftoff thrust: {{convert|30.16|MN|lbf|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}

==Mission profile==
] profile]]
] across the sky.]]


===Launch=== ===Launch===
]
{{See also|Space shuttle launch countdown|Space shuttle launch commit criteria}}
The mission crew and the Launch Control Center (LCC) personnel completed systems checks throughout the countdown. Two built-in holds at T−20&nbsp;minutes and T−9&nbsp;minutes provided scheduled breaks to address any issues and additional preparation.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–8}} After the built-in hold at T−9&nbsp;minutes, the countdown was automatically controlled by the Ground Launch Sequencer (GLS) at the LCC, which stopped the countdown if it sensed a critical problem with any of the Space Shuttle's onboard systems.<ref name="sts121_blog" /> At T−3&nbsp;minutes&nbsp;45&nbsp;seconds, the engines began conducting gimbal tests, which were concluded at T−2&nbsp;minutes&nbsp;15&nbsp;seconds. The ground ] handed off the control to the orbiter vehicle's GPCs at T−31&nbsp;seconds. At T−16&nbsp;seconds, the GPCs armed the SRBs, the sound suppression system (SPS) began to drench the MLP and SRB trenches with {{convert|300000|USgal|L|sigfig=2|order=flip|sp=us|abbr=on}} of water to protect the orbiter vehicle from damage by ] energy and rocket exhaust reflected from the flame trench and MLP during lift-off.<ref name="sound_suppression">{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sound-suppression-system.html |title=Sound Suppression System |date=November 23, 2007 |last=Ryba |first=Jeanne |publisher=NASA |access-date=March 22, 2020 |archive-date=June 29, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629143632/http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/sound-suppression-system.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="sps">{{cite web |title=Sound Suppression Water System |publisher=NASA |date=August 28, 2000 |last=Grinter |first=Kay |url=http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count4ssws.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140313042409/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/count4ssws.htm |archive-date=March 13, 2014 |url-status=dead |access-date=April 9, 2020}}</ref> At T−10&nbsp;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 hydrogen tank's prevalves were opened at T−9.5&nbsp;seconds in preparation for engine start.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II–186}}


]
All Space Shuttle missions were launched from Kennedy Space Center (KSC). The ] included, but were not limited to: precipitation, temperatures, cloud cover, lightning forecast, wind, and humidity.<ref name="weather launch criteria">{{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}}</ref> The Shuttle was not launched under conditions where it could have been struck by ]. 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 ]. 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 ] could not appear within a distance of 10 ].<ref>Weather at About.com. {{dead link|date=July 2011}}. Retrieved June 10, 2008.</ref> 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 ]) to launch as well as the solid rocket booster recovery area.<ref name="weather launch criteria" /><ref>NASA Launch Blog. . Retrieved June 10, 2008.</ref> While the Shuttle might have safely endured a lightning strike, a ], so for safety ] chose not to launch the Shuttle if lightning was possible (NPR8715.5).
Beginning at T−6.6&nbsp;seconds, the main engines were ignited sequentially at 120-millisecond intervals. All three RS-25 engines were required to reach 90% rated thrust by T−3&nbsp;seconds, otherwise the GPCs would initiate an ]. If all three engines indicated nominal performance by T−3&nbsp;seconds, they were commanded to gimbal to liftoff configuration and the command would be issued to arm the SRBs for ignition at T−0.<ref name="countdown101">{{cite web |last=Ryba |first=Jeanne |title=Countdown 101 |publisher=NASA |date=September 17, 2009 |url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/countdown101.html |access-date=March 22, 2020 |archive-date=January 26, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200126124224/https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/countdown101.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Between T−6.6&nbsp;seconds and T−3&nbsp;seconds, while the RS-25 engines were firing but the SRBs were still bolted to the pad, the offset thrust would cause the Space Shuttle to pitch down {{convert|25.5|in|abbr=on|order=flip}} measured at the tip of the external tank; the 3-second delay allowed the stack to return to nearly vertical before SRB ignition. This movement was nicknamed the "twang." At T−0, the eight ] holding the SRBs to the pad were detonated, the final umbilicals were disconnected, the SSMEs were commanded to 100% throttle, and the SRBs were ignited.<ref name=nuts0>{{cite web |url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/290339main_8-388221J.pdf |title=Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster |access-date=March 22, 2020 |publisher=NASA |date=November 2008 |last=Roy |first=Steve |archive-date=November 13, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181113090531/https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/pdf/290339main_8-388221J.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="frang_nut_liftoff">{{cite web |title=Solid Rocket Boosters |date=August 31, 2000 |last=Dumoulin |first=Jim |url=http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html |publisher=NASA |access-date=March 22, 2020 |archive-date=February 16, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216005534/http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/srb.html |url-status=live }}</ref> By T+0.23&nbsp;seconds, the SRBs built up enough thrust for liftoff to commence, and reached maximum chamber pressure by T+0.6&nbsp;seconds.<ref>{{cite web |title=Shuttle Crew Operations Manual |url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/390651main_shuttle_crew_operations_manual.pdf |publisher=NASA |access-date=May 4, 2018 |archive-date=December 16, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171216034929/https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/390651main_shuttle_crew_operations_manual.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II–186}} At T−0, the JSC ] assumed control of the flight from the LCC.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–9}}


]
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.<ref name="YERO">{{cite web |last=Bergin |first=Chris |title=NASA solves YERO problem for Shuttle |url=http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5026 |archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20080418182718/http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5026 |archivedate=April 18, 2008 |date= February 19, 2007 |accessdate=December 22, 2007 }}</ref>
At T+4&nbsp;seconds, when the Space Shuttle reached an altitude of {{convert|73|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off}}, the RS-25 engines were throttled up to 104.5%. At approximately T+7&nbsp;seconds, the Space Shuttle rolled to a heads-down orientation at an altitude of {{convert|350|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off}}, which reduced aerodynamic stress and provided an improved communication and navigation orientation. Approximately 20–30&nbsp;seconds into ascent and an altitude of {{convert|9000|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off}}, the RS-25 engines were throttled down to 65–72% to reduce the maximum aerodynamic forces at ].<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–8–9}} Additionally, the shape of the SRB propellant was designed to cause thrust to decrease at the time of Max Q.<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|427}} The GPCs could dynamically control the throttle of the RS-25 engines based upon the performance of the SRBs.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II–187}}


]
On the day of a 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 approximately T+123&nbsp;seconds and an altitude of {{convert|150000|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off}}, pyrotechnic fasteners released the SRBs, which reached an ] of {{convert|220000|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off}} before parachuting into the ]. The Space Shuttle continued its ascent using only the RS-25 engines. On earlier missions, the Space Shuttle remained in the heads-down orientation to maintain communications with the ] in ], but later missions, beginning with ], rolled to a heads-up orientation at T+6&nbsp;minutes for communication with the ] constellation. The RS-25 engines were throttled at T+7&nbsp;minutes&nbsp;30&nbsp;seconds to limit vehicle acceleration to 3 ''g''. At 6&nbsp;seconds prior to main engine cutoff (MECO), which occurred at T+8&nbsp;minutes&nbsp;30&nbsp;seconds, the RS-25 engines were throttled down to 67%. The GPCs controlled ET separation and dumped the remaining liquid oxygen and hydrogen to prevent outgassing while in orbit. The ET continued on a ballistic trajectory and broke up during reentry, with some small pieces landing in the Indian or Pacific Ocean.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–9–10}}


Early missions used two firings of the OMS to achieve orbit; the first firing raised the apogee while the second circularized the orbit. Missions after ] used the RS-25 engines to achieve the optimal apogee, and used the OMS engines to circularize the orbit. The orbital altitude and inclination were mission-dependent, and the Space Shuttle's orbits varied from {{convert|120|to|335|nmi|km|sigfig=2|sp=us|adj=off|abbr=on|order=flip}}.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–10}}
At T-minus 16 seconds, the massive sound suppression system (SPS) began to drench the ] (MLP) and SRB trenches with {{convert|300000|USgal|m3|sigfig=2}} of water to protect the Orbiter from damage by ] energy and rocket exhaust reflected from the flame trench and MLP during lift off ().<ref name="sps">National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Revised August 28, 2000. Retrieved July 9, 2006.</ref>

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-minus 6.6 seconds. The main engines ignited sequentially via the Shuttle's general purpose computers (GPCs) at 120 millisecond intervals. The GPCs required that the engines reach 90 percent of their rated performance to complete the final gimbal of the main engine nozzles to liftoff configuration.<ref name="countdown101">National Aeronautics and Space Administration. . Retrieved July 10, 2008.</ref> When the SSMEs started, water from the sound suppression system flashed into a large volume of steam that shot southward. All three SSMEs had to reach the required 100 percent thrust within three seconds, otherwise the onboard computers would initiate an ]. If the onboard computers verified normal thrust buildup, at T minus 0 seconds, the 8 ] holding the vehicle to the pad were detonated and the SRBs were ignited. At this point the vehicle was committed to liftoff, as the SRBs could not be turned off once ignited.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/srb/posts.html |title=HSF – The Shuttle |publisher=Spaceflight.nasa.gov |accessdate=July 17, 2009}}</ref> The plume from the solid rockets exited the flame trench in a northward direction at near the speed of sound, often causing a rippling of shockwaves along the actual flame and smoke contrails. At ignition, the GPCs mandated the firing sequences via the Master Events Controller, a computer program integrated with the Shuttle's four redundant computer systems. There were extensive emergency procedures (]) to handle various failure scenarios during ascent. Many of these concerned SSME failures, since that was the most complex and highly stressed component. After the Challenger disaster, there were extensive upgrades to the abort modes.

After the main engines started, but while the solid rocket boosters were still bolted to the pad, the offset thrust from the Shuttle's three main engines caused the entire launch stack (boosters, tank and Shuttle) to pitch down about 2 m at cockpit level. This motion was called the "nod", or "twang" in NASA jargon. As the boosters flexed back into their original shape, the launch stack pitched slowly back upright. This took approximately six seconds. At the point when it was perfectly vertical, the boosters ignited and the launch commenced. The ]'s ] assumed control of the flight once the SRBs had cleared the launch tower.

Shortly after clearing the tower, the Shuttle began a combined roll, pitch and yaw maneuver that positioned the orbiter head down, with wings level and aligned with the launch pad. 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 use of the ground as a visual reference. The vehicle climbed in a progressively flattening arc, accelerating as the weight 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 7.68 kilometers per second or {{convert|27650|km/h|mph|abbr=on|sigfig=4}}, 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 a point called ], where the aerodynamic forces are at their maximum, the main engines were temporarily throttled back to 72 percent to avoid ] and hence overstressing the Shuttle, particularly in vulnerable areas such as the wings. At this point, a phenomenon known as the ] occurred, where condensation clouds formed during the vehicle's transition to supersonic speed.

A few seconds later, after the shuttle had gained more altitude and reached a region of lower atmospheric pressure, this dangerous point is passed. At ''T''+70 seconds the main engines throttled up to their maximum cruise thrust of 104% rated thrust.

]

At ''T''+126 seconds after launch, ]s 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. The vehicle at that point in the flight had a thrust-to-weight ratio of less than one{{spaced ndash}}the main engines actually had insufficient thrust to exceed the force of gravity, and the vertical speed given to it by the SRBs temporarily decreased. However, as the burn continued, the weight of the propellant decreased and the thrust-to-weight ratio exceeded 1 again and the ever-lighter vehicle then continued to accelerate towards orbit.

The vehicle continued to climb and 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 ] system.

Finally, in the last tens of seconds of the main engine burn, the mass of the vehicle was low enough that the engines had to be throttled back to limit vehicle acceleration to 3 ''g'' (29.34&nbsp;m/s²), largely for astronaut comfort. At approximately eight minutes post launch, the main engines were shut down.

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.) The external tank was released by firing pyrotechnic fasteners, largely burning up in the atmosphere, though some fragments fell into the ocean, in either the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean depending on launch profile.<ref name="tech" /> 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.

To prevent the Shuttle from following the external tank back into the lower atmosphere, the ] (OMS) engines were fired to raise the perigee higher into the upper atmosphere. On some missions (e.g., missions to the ISS), the OMS engines were also used while the main engines were still firing. The reason for putting the orbiter on a path that brought it back to Earth was not just for external tank disposal but also one of safety: if the OMS malfunctioned, or the cargo bay doors could not open for some reason, the Shuttle was already on a path to return to earth for an emergency abort landing.

====Ascent tracking====
]
] of the ] launch]]

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 ] as well as 9 other sites from 38 miles north at the ] to 23 miles south to ] (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 ] and ] The number of cameras significantly increased and numerous existing cameras were upgraded at the recommendation of the ] to provide better information about the debris during launch. Debris was also tracked using a pair of ] Continuous Pulse Doppler X-band radars, one on board the SRB recovery ship ] 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 ] reconnaissance aircraft equipped with HD Video and Infrared flew at {{convert|60000|ft}} to provide additional views of the launch ascent.<ref>{{cite web|title=Shuttle launch imagery from land, air and water|url=http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/167722main_LaunchImagery06.pdf}}</ref> Kennedy Space Center also invested nearly $3&nbsp;million in improvements to the digital video analysis systems in support of debris tracking.<ref>{{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}}</ref>


===In orbit=== ===In orbit===
]


The type of mission the Space Shuttle was assigned to dictate the type of orbit that it entered. The initial design of the reusable Space Shuttle envisioned an increasingly cheap launch platform to deploy commercial and government satellites. Early missions routinely ferried satellites, which determined the type of orbit that the orbiter vehicle would enter. Following the ''Challenger'' disaster, many commercial payloads were moved to expendable commercial rockets, such as the ].<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–108, 123}} While later missions still launched commercial payloads, Space Shuttle assignments were routinely directed towards scientific payloads, such as the ],<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–148}} Spacelab,<ref name=jenkins />{{rp|434–435}} and the ].<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–140}} Beginning with ], the orbiter vehicle conducted dockings with the ].<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–224}} In its final decade of operation, the Space Shuttle was used for the construction of the ].<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–264}} Most missions involved staying in orbit several days to two weeks, although longer missions were possible with the ] pallet.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–86}} The 17 day 15 hour ] mission was the longest Space Shuttle mission duration.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–238}}
Once in orbit, the Shuttle usually flew at an altitude of 200 miles (321.9&nbsp;km), and occasionally as high as 400 miles.<ref>{{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}}</ref> 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 ] add-on or when attached to a space station.

{|
|]
|]
|}


===Re-entry and landing=== ===Re-entry and landing===
] re-entry]]
{{refimprove section|date=June 2007}}


Approximately four hours prior to deorbit, the crew began preparing the orbiter vehicle for reentry by closing the payload doors, radiating excess heat, and retracting the Ku&nbsp;band antenna. The orbiter vehicle maneuvered to an upside-down, tail-first orientation and began a 2–4&nbsp;minute OMS burn approximately 20&nbsp;minutes before it reentered the atmosphere. The orbiter vehicle reoriented itself to a nose-forward position with a 40° angle-of-attack, and the forward ] (RCS) jets were emptied of fuel and disabled prior to reentry. The orbiter vehicle's reentry was defined as starting at an altitude of {{convert|400000|ft|km|abbr=on|sigfig=2|order=flip}}, when it was traveling at approximately Mach 25. The orbiter vehicle's reentry was controlled by the GPCs, which followed a preset angle-of-attack plan to prevent unsafe heating of the TPS. During reentry, the orbiter's speed was regulated by altering the amount of drag produced, which was controlled by means of angle of attack, as well as bank angle. The latter could be used to control drag without changing the angle of attack. A series of roll reversals{{refn|group=lower-alpha|A roll reversal is a maneuver where the bank angle is altered from one side to another. They are used to control the deviation of the azimuth from the prograde vector that results from using high bank angles to create drag.}} were performed to control azimuth while banking.<ref>{{Citation |title=Space Shuttle Reentry In-depth | date=July 25, 2020 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA91evJ-wdk |language=en |access-date=October 24, 2022 |archive-date=January 18, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230118120755/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA91evJ-wdk |url-status=live }}</ref> The orbiter vehicle's aft RCS jets were disabled as its ailerons, elevators, and rudder became effective in the lower atmosphere. At an altitude of {{convert|150000|ft|km|abbr=on|sigfig=2|order=flip}}, the orbiter vehicle opened its ] on the vertical stabilizer. At 8&nbsp;minutes&nbsp;44&nbsp;seconds prior to landing, the crew deployed the air data probes, and began lowering the angle-of-attack to 36°.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–12}} The orbiter's maximum ]/] varied considerably with speed, ranging from 1.3 at ] speeds to 4.9 at subsonic speeds.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|II–1}} The orbiter vehicle flew to one of the two Heading Alignment Cones, located {{convert|30|mi|km|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}} away from each end of the runway's centerline, where it made its final turns to dissipate excess energy prior to its approach and landing. Once the orbiter vehicle was traveling subsonically, the crew took over manual control of the flight.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–13}}
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. However, 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.


] ] after landing on ]]]
The approach and landing phase began when the orbiter vehicle was at an altitude of {{convert|10000|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|adj=off|abbr=on|order=flip}} and traveling at {{convert|300|kn|m/s|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}}. The orbiter followed either a {{hyphen}}20° or {{hyphen}}18° glideslope and descended at approximately {{convert|167|ft/s|m/s|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}}. The speed brake was used to keep a continuous speed, and crew initiated a pre-flare maneuver to a {{hyphen}}1.5° glideslope at an altitude of {{convert|2000|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|adj=off|abbr=on|order=flip}}. The landing gear was deployed 10&nbsp;seconds prior to touchdown, when the orbiter was at an altitude of {{convert|300|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|adj=off|abbr=on|order=flip}} and traveling {{convert|288|kn|m/s|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}}. A final flare maneuver reduced the orbiter vehicle's descent rate to {{convert|3|ft/s|m/s|sigfig=1|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}}, with touchdown occurring at {{convert|195-295|kn|m/s|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}}, depending on the weight of the orbiter vehicle. After the landing gear touched down, the crew deployed a drag chute out of the vertical stabilizer, and began wheel braking when the orbiter was traveling slower than {{convert|140|kn|m/s|sigfig=2|sp=us|order=flip|adj=off|abbr=on}}. After the orbiter's wheels stopped, the crew deactivated the flight components and prepared to exit.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–13}}


====Landing sites====
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 ] 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.
{{see also|List of Space Shuttle landing sites}}


The primary Space Shuttle landing site was the ] at KSC, where 78 of the 133 successful landings occurred. In the event of unfavorable landing conditions, the Shuttle could delay its landing or land at an alternate location. The primary alternate was Edwards AFB, which was used for 54 landings.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–18–20}} ] landed at the ] in ] and required extensive post-processing after exposure to the ]-rich sand, some of which was found in ''Columbia'' debris after ].<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–28}} Landings at alternate airfields required the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft to transport the orbiter back to ].<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–13}}
The vehicle started encountering more significant air density in the lower thermosphere at about {{convert|400000|ft|km|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}, at around ] 25, {{convert|8200|m/s|km/h mph|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}. The vehicle was controlled by a combination of ] 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.


In addition to the pre-planned landing airfields, there were 85 agreed-upon ] to be used in different abort scenarios, with 58 located in other countries. The landing locations were chosen based upon political relationships, favorable weather, a runway at least {{convert|7500|ft|m|sigfig=2|sp=us|adj=off|abbr=on|order=flip}} long, and ] or ] equipment. Additionally, as the orbiter vehicle only had UHF radios, international sites with only VHF radios would have been unable to communicate directly with the crew. Facilities on the east coast of the US were planned for East Coast Abort Landings, while several sites in Europe and Africa were planned in the event of a Transoceanic Abort Landing. The facilities were prepared with equipment and personnel in the event of an emergency shuttle landing but were never used.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–19}}
<center><gallery>
File:Stsheat.jpg|] of the outside of the Shuttle as it heats up to over 1,500&nbsp; °C during re-entry.
File:Nasa Shuttle Test Using Electron Beam full.jpg|A Space Shuttle model undergoes a ] test in 1975. This test is simulating the ionized gasses that surround a Shuttle as it reenters the atmosphere.
File:CFD Shuttle.jpg|A computer simulation of high velocity air flow around the Space Shuttle during re-entry.
</gallery></center>

The orbiter's maximum ]/] varies considerably with speed, ranging from 1:1 at ] speeds, 2:1 at supersonic speeds and reaching 4.5:1 at subsonic speeds during approach and landing.<ref>http://klabs.org/DEI/Processor/shuttle/shuttle_tech_conf/1985008580.pdf</ref>

In the lower atmosphere, the orbiter flies much like a conventional glider, except for a much higher descent rate, over {{convert|50|m/s|km/h mph|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}(9800fpm). At approximately Mach 3, two air data probes, located on the left and right sides of the orbiter's forward lower fuselage, are deployed to sense air pressure related to the vehicle's movement in the atmosphere.

====Final approach and landing phase====
], Space Shuttle ''Endeavour'' landing video (2009)]]

When the approach and landing phase began, the orbiter was at a {{convert|3000|m|ft|abbr=on|sigfig=2}} 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}} 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}} 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}}. The chute was jettisoned once the orbiter slowed to {{convert|110|km/h|mph|abbr=on|sigfig=3}}.

<gallery>
File:Concluding the STS-133 mission, Space Shuttle Discovery touches down at the Shuttle Landing Facility.jpg|'']'' touches down for the final time at the end of ].
File:Space Shuttle Endeavour landing.jpg|'']'' brake chute deploys after touching down
</gallery>
<small>{{commons-inline|bullet=none|Category:Landings of space shuttles|Landings of space Shuttles}}</small>


===Post-landing processing=== ===Post-landing processing===
{{main|Orbiter Processing Facility}} {{main|Orbiter Processing Facility}}
] ]]]


After the landing, ground crews approached the orbiter to conduct safety checks. Teams wearing self-contained breathing gear tested for the presence of ], ], monomethylhydrazine, ], and ] to ensure the landing area was safe.<ref name=afterlandingpao>{{cite web |title=From Landing to Launch Orbiter Processing |url=http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/orbiterprocessing2002.pdf |publisher=NASA |access-date=June 30, 2011 |date=2002 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721053142/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/orbiterprocessing2002.pdf |archive-date=July 21, 2011}}</ref> Air conditioning and Freon lines were connected to cool the crew and equipment and dissipate excess heat from reentry.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-13}} A ] boarded the orbiter and performed medical checks of the crew before they disembarked.
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 ], ], ], ] and ] (fuels and by products of the control and the orbiter's three ]). 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 ] 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<ref name=afterlandingpao>{{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}}</ref>
Once the orbiter was secured, it was towed to the OPF to be inspected, repaired, and prepared for the next mission.<ref name=afterlandingpao/> The processing included:
* removal and installation of mission-specific items and payloads
* draining of waste and leftover consumables, and refilling of new consumables
* inspection and (if necessary) repair of the thermal protection system
* checkout and servicing of main engines (done in the ] to facilitate easier access, necessitating their removal from the orbiter)
* if necessary, removal of the ] and ] pods for maintenance at the ]
* installation of any mid-life upgrades and modifications


==Space Shuttle program==
If the mission ended at ] in California, ] in New Mexico, or any of the ], the orbiter was loaded atop the ], a modified 747, for transport back to the Kennedy Space Center, landing at the ]. 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 ] where it began a months-long preparation process for the next mission.<ref name=afterlandingpao/>
{{main|Space Shuttle program}}
The Space Shuttle flew from April 12, 1981,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–24}} until July 21, 2011.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–398}} Throughout the program, the Space Shuttle had 135 missions,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–398}} of which 133 returned safely.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–80, 304}} Throughout its lifetime, the Space Shuttle was used to conduct scientific research,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–188}} deploy commercial,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–66}} military,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–68}} and scientific payloads,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–148}} and was involved in the construction and operation of ]<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–216}} and the ISS.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–264}} During its tenure, the Space Shuttle served as the only U.S. vehicle to launch astronauts, of which there was no replacement until the launch of ] on May 30, 2020.<ref name="demo-2">{{cite web |last1=Finch |first1=Josh |last2=Schierholz |first2=Stephanie |last3=Herring |first3=Kyle |last4=Lewis |first4=Marie |last5=Huot |first5=Dan |last6=Dean |first6=Brandi |title=NASA Astronauts Launch from America in Historic Test Flight of SpaceX Crew Dragon |work=Release 20-057 |publisher=NASA |date=May 31, 2020 |url=https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-astronauts-launch-from-america-in-historic-test-flight-of-spacex-crew-dragon |access-date=June 10, 2020 |archive-date=August 20, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200820044825/https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-astronauts-launch-from-america-in-historic-test-flight-of-spacex-crew-dragon/ |url-status=live }}</ref>


===Landing sites=== ===Budget===
The overall NASA budget of the Space Shuttle program has been estimated to be $221&nbsp;billion (in 2012 dollars).<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III−488}} The developers of the Space Shuttle advocated for reusability as a cost-saving measure, which resulted in higher development costs for presumed lower costs-per-launch. During the design of the Space Shuttle, the Phase B proposals were not as cheap as the initial Phase A estimates indicated; Space Shuttle program manager Robert Thompson acknowledged that reducing cost-per-pound was not the primary objective of the further design phases, as other technical requirements could not be met with the reduced costs.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III−489−490}} Development estimates made in 1972 projected a per-pound cost of payload as low as $1,109 (in 2012) per pound, but the actual payload costs, not to include the costs for the research and development of the Space Shuttle, were $37,207 (in 2012) per pound.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III−491}} Per-launch costs varied throughout the program and were dependent on the rate of flights as well as research, development, and investigation proceedings throughout the Space Shuttle program. In 1982, NASA published an estimate of $260&nbsp;million (in 2012) per flight, which was based on the prediction of 24 flights per year for a decade. The per-launch cost from 1995 to 2002, when the orbiters and ISS were not being constructed and there was no recovery work following a loss of crew, was $806&nbsp;million. NASA published a study in 1999 that concluded that costs were $576&nbsp;million (in 2012) if there were seven launches per year. In 2009, NASA determined that the cost of adding a single launch per year was $252&nbsp;million (in 2012), which indicated that much of the Space Shuttle program costs are for year-round personnel and operations that continued regardless of the launch rate. Accounting for the entire Space Shuttle program budget, the per-launch cost was $1.642&nbsp;billion (in 2012).<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III−490}}
{{See also|List of space shuttle landing runways}}


===Disasters===
NASA preferred Space Shuttle landings to be at ].<ref>{{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}}</ref> 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 ]. Space Shuttle ''Columbia'' (]) once landed at the ], ]; this was viewed as a last resort as NASA scientists believe that the sand could potentially damage the Shuttle's exterior.
{{main|Space Shuttle Challenger disaster|Space Shuttle Columbia disaster}}


On January 28, 1986, ] disintegrated 73 seconds after launch, due to the failure of the right SRB, killing all seven astronauts on board ''Challenger''. The disaster was caused by the 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 ET, leading to a sequence of catastrophic events which caused the orbiter to disintegrate.<ref name=challenger_report>{{cite web|url=https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Rogers_Commission_Report_Vol1.pdf|last1=Rogers|first1=William P.|author-link1=William P. Rogers|last2=Armstrong|first2=Neil A.|author-link2=Neil A. Armstrong|last3=Acheson|first3=David C.|author-link3=David Campion Acheson|last4=Covert|first4=Eugene E.|author-link4=Eugene E. Covert|last5=Feynman|first5=Richard P.|author-link5=Richard Feynman|last6=Hotz|first6=Robert B.|last7=Kutyna|first7=Donald J.|author-link7=Donald J. Kutyna|last8=Ride|first8=Sally K|author-link8=Sally Ride|last9=Rummel|first9=Robert W.|last10=Sutter|first10=Joseph F.|author-link10=Joseph F. Sutter|last11=Walker|first11=Arthur B.C.|author-link11=Arthur B. C. Walker Jr.|last12=Wheelon|first12=Albert D.|last13=Yeager|first13=Charles E.|author-link13=Chuck Yeager|title=Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident|publisher=NASA|date=June 6, 1986|access-date=July 13, 2021|volume=1|archive-date=July 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210713081155/https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Rogers_Commission_Report_Vol1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>{{rp|71}} Repeated warnings from design engineers voicing concerns about the lack of evidence of the O-rings' safety when the temperature was below {{convert|53|F|C}} had been ignored by NASA managers.<ref name=challenger_report />{{rp|148}}
There were many ] that were never used.<ref>{{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}}</ref><ref>{{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 }}</ref>


On February 1, 2003, ''Columbia'' disintegrated during re-entry, killing all seven of the ] crew, because of damage to the ] 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 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 imaging of the orbiter and refused the request for the spacewalk,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–323}}<ref name="century_of_flight_columbia">{{cite web |title=The Columbia Accident |publisher=Century of Flight |url=http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/space/Columbia%20accident.htm |access-date=May 28, 2019 |archive-date=September 26, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070926220336/http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/space/Columbia%20accident.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> and thus the feasibility of scenarios for astronaut repair or rescue by ''Atlantis'' were not considered by NASA management at the time.<ref name="sts-107_timeline">{{cite web |url=https://history.nasa.gov/columbia/Troxell/Columbia%20Web%20Site/Timelines/master_timeline.htm |title=NASA Columbia Master Timeline |date=March 10, 2003 |website=NASA |access-date=May 28, 2019 |archive-date=December 25, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171225231450/https://history.nasa.gov/columbia/Troxell/Columbia%20Web%20Site/Timelines/master_timeline.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
===Risk contributors===
]
An example of technical risk analysis for a STS mission is SPRA iteration 3.1 top risk contributors for STS-133:<ref name="copv">{{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}}</ref><ref>Hamlin, et al. (.pdf). NASA.</ref>
# Micro-Meteoroid Orbital Debris (MMOD) strikes
# Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME)-induced or SSME catastrophic failure
# Ascent debris strikes to TPS leading to LOCV on orbit or entry
# Crew error during entry
# RSRM-induced RSRM catastrophic failure (RSRM are the rocket motors of the SRBs)
# COPV failure (COPV are tanks inside the orbiter that hold gas at high pressure)


===Criticism===
An internal NASA risk assessment study (conducted by the Shuttle Program Safety and Mission Assurance Office at ]) 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 100.<ref>'']'', "", '']'', February 13, 2011. Retrieved February 15, 2011.</ref>
{{main|Criticism of the Space Shuttle program}}


The partial reusability of the Space Shuttle was one of the primary design requirements during its initial development.<ref name="dev_space_shuttle" />{{rp|164}} The technical decisions that dictated the orbiter's return and re-use reduced the per-launch payload capabilities. The original intention was to compensate for this lower payload by lowering the per-launch costs and a high launch frequency. However, the actual costs of a Space Shuttle launch were higher than initially predicted, and the Space Shuttle did not fly the intended 24 missions per year as initially predicted by NASA.<ref name="griffin">{{cite magazine |last=Griffin |first=Michael D. |title=Human Space Exploration: The Next 50 Years |magazine=Aviation Week |date=March 14, 2007 |url=https://aviationweek.typepad.com/space/2007/03/human_space_exp.html |access-date=June 15, 2020 |archive-date=August 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807201318/https://aviationweek.typepad.com/space/2007/03/human_space_exp.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–489–490}}
==Fleet history==
], Edwards, California in 1977 as part of the Shuttle program's ] (ALT).]]
]'' lifts off from Launch Pad 39A at NASA's ] in Florida on the ] mission to the ] at 2:20&nbsp;pm EDT on May 14, 2010. This was one of the last scheduled flights for ''Atlantis'' before it was retired.]]
{{Main|List of space shuttle missions}}


The Space Shuttle was originally intended as a launch vehicle to deploy satellites, which it was primarily used for on the missions prior to the ''Challenger'' disaster. NASA's pricing, which was below cost, was lower than expendable launch vehicles; the intention was that the high volume of Space Shuttle missions would compensate for early financial losses. The improvement of expendable launch vehicles and the transition away from commercial payloads on the Space Shuttle resulted in expendable launch vehicles becoming the primary deployment option for satellites.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III–109–112}} A key customer for the Space Shuttle was the ] (NRO) responsible for spy satellites. The existence of NRO's connection was classified through 1993, and secret considerations of NRO payload requirements led to lack of transparency in the program. The proposed ] program, cancelled in the wake of the ''Challenger'' disaster, would have pushed the spacecraft beyond its operational capacity.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cook |first1=Richard |title=Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Ag |date=2007 |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-1560259800}}</ref>
Below is a list of major events in the Space Shuttle orbiter fleet.


The fatal ''Challenger'' and ''Columbia'' disasters demonstrated the safety risks of the Space Shuttle that could result in the loss of the crew. The spaceplane design of the orbiter limited the abort options, as the abort scenarios required the controlled flight of the orbiter to a runway or to allow the crew to egress individually, rather than the abort escape options on the ] and ] space capsules.<ref name="shuttle_safety_comparison">{{cite magazine |last=Klesius |first=Mike |title=Spaceflight Safety: Shuttle vs. Soyuz vs. Falcon 9 |magazine=] |date=March 31, 2010 |url=https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/spaceflight-safety-shuttle-vs-soyuz-vs-falcon-9-134341766/ |access-date=June 15, 2020 |archive-date=August 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807105239/https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/spaceflight-safety-shuttle-vs-soyuz-vs-falcon-9-134341766/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Early safety analyses advertised by NASA engineers and management predicted the chance of a catastrophic failure resulting in the death of the crew as ranging from 1 in 100 launches to as rare as 1 in 100,000.<ref name="ieee_challenger">{{cite magazine |last1=Bell |first1=Trudy |last2=Esch |first2=Karl |title=The Challenger Disaster: A Case of Subjective Engineering |magazine=IEEE Spectrum |publisher=] |date=January 28, 2016 |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-space-shuttle-a-case-of-subjective-engineering |access-date=June 18, 2020 |archive-date=May 29, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190529071012/https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/heroic-failures/the-space-shuttle-a-case-of-subjective-engineering |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="feynman_appendix">{{cite web |last=Feynman |first=Richard |author-link=Richard Feynman |title=Appendix F – Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle |work=Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident |publisher=NASA |date=June 6, 1986 |url=https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt |access-date=June 18, 2020 |archive-date=August 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807102802/https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt |url-status=live }}</ref> Following the loss of two Space Shuttle missions, the risks for the initial missions were reevaluated, and the chance of a catastrophic loss of the vehicle and crew was found to be as high as 1 in 9.<ref name="npr_safety">{{cite web |last1=Flatow |first1=Ira |last2=Hamlin |first2=Teri |last3=Canga |first3=Mike |title=Earlier Space Shuttle Flights Riskier Than Estimated |work=Talk of the Nation |publisher=] |date=March 4, 2011 |url=https://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134265291/early-space-shuttle-flights-riskier-than-estimated |access-date=June 18, 2020 |archive-date=August 8, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200808054138/https://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134265291/early-space-shuttle-flights-riskier-than-estimated |url-status=live }}</ref> NASA management was criticized afterwards for accepting increased risk to the crew in exchange for higher mission rates. Both the '']'' and ''] '' reports explained that NASA culture had failed to keep the crew safe by not objectively evaluating the potential risks of the missions.<ref name="feynman_appendix" /><ref name="columbia_report">{{cite web |title=Columbia Accident Investigation Board |publisher=NASA |date=August 2003 |url=https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/sts-107/investigation/CAIB_medres_full.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041109135216/http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/sts-107/investigation/CAIB_medres_full.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=November 9, 2004 |access-date=June 18, 2020}}</ref>{{rp|195–203}}
{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:95%;"
|+ '''Space Shuttle major events'''
|-
! Date
! Orbiter
! Major event / remarks
|-
| September 17, 1976
| '']''
| Prototype Space Shuttle ''Enterprise'' was rolled out of its assembly facility in Southern California and displayed before a crowd several thousand strong.<ref>{{cite web|last=Wall |first=Mike |url=http://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}}</ref>
|-
| February 18, 1977
| ''Enterprise''
| First flight; Attached to ] throughout flight.
|-
| August 12, 1977
| ''Enterprise''
| First free flight; Tailcone on; lakebed landing.
<!--|-
| October 12, 1977
| ''Enterprise''
| Third free flight; First with no tailcone; lakebed landing.-->
|-
| October 26, 1977
| ''Enterprise''
| Final ''Enterprise'' free flight; First landing on Edwards AFB concrete runway.
|-
| April 12, 1981
| '']''
| First ''Columbia'' flight, first orbital test flight; ]
|-
| November 11, 1982
| ''Columbia''
| First operational flight of the Space Shuttle, first mission to carry four astronauts; ]
|-
| April 4, 1983
| '']''
| First ''Challenger'' flight; ]
|-
| August 30, 1984
| '']''
| First ''Discovery'' flight; ]
|-
| October 3, 1985
| '']''
| First ''Atlantis'' flight; ]
|-
| October 30, 1985
| ''Challenger''
| First crew of eight astronauts; ]
|-
| January 28, 1986
| ''Challenger''
| ]; ]; all seven crew members died.
|-
| September 29, 1988
| ''Discovery''
| First post-''Challenger'' mission; ]
|-
| May 4, 1989
| ''Atlantis''
| The first Space Shuttle mission to launch an interplanetary probe, ]; ]
|-
| April 24, 1990
| ''Discovery''
| Launch of the ]; ]
|-
| May 7, 1992
| '']''
| First ''Endeavour'' flight; ]
|-
| November 19, 1996
| ''Columbia''
| Longest Shuttle mission at 17 days, 15 hours; ]
|-
| December 4, 1998
| ''Endeavour''
| First ] mission; ]
|-
| February 1, 2003
| ''Columbia''
| ]; ]; all seven crew members died.
|-
| July 25, 2005
| ''Discovery''
| First post-''Columbia'' mission; ]
|-
<!-- | April 5, 2010
| ''Discovery''
| Last night launch; ] -->
|-
| February 24, 2011
| ''Discovery''
| Last ''Discovery'' flight; ]
|-
| May 16, 2011
| ''Endeavour''
| Last ''Endeavour'' mission; ]<ref>{{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}}</ref><ref>{{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}}</ref>
|-
| July 8, 2011
| ''Atlantis''
| Last ''Atlantis'' flight and last Space Shuttle flight; ]
|}
Sources: NASA launch manifest,<ref name="manifest">{{cite web|url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_manifest.html |title=Consolidated Launch Manifest |accessdate=May 28, 2009 |publisher=NASA}}</ref> NASA Space Shuttle archive<ref name="archive">{{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}}</ref>


===Shuttle disasters=== === Retirement ===
{{Main|Space Shuttle Challenger disaster|Space Shuttle Columbia disaster}}

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. The failure of a lower O-ring seal allowed hot combustion gases to escape from between the booster sections and burn through the adjacent ], causing it to explode.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://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}}</ref> Repeated warnings from design engineers voicing concerns about the lack of evidence of the O-rings' safety when the temperature was below 53&nbsp;°F (12&nbsp;°C) had been ignored by NASA managers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://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}}</ref>

On February 1, 2003, ''Columbia'' disintegrated during re-entry, killing its crew of seven, because of damage to the ] 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 ] (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,<ref>. century-of-flight.net</ref> and thus the feasibility of scenarios for astronaut repair or rescue by ''Atlantis'' were not considered by NASA management at the time.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL2/D13.PDF |title=D13 – In-Flight Options |format=PDF |accessdate=July 17, 2009}}</ref>

==Retirement==
{{main|Space Shuttle 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 ] in the early 1990s. When the US space station evolved into the International Space Station project, which suffered from long delays and design changes before it could be completed, the service life of the Space Shuttle was extended several times until 2011, serving at least 15 years longer than it was originally designed to do. ''Discovery'' was the first of NASA's three remaining operational Space Shuttles to be retired.<ref>{{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 }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{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}}</ref> 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);<ref>. FoxNews.com, July 3, 2011. Retrieved July 4, 2011</ref> 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).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/index.html |title=NASA – Launch and Landing|publisher=NASA|accessdate=July 23, 2011}}</ref>

===Distribution of orbiters and other hardware===
] commemorative patch]]

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.<ref name="retired shuttle display">{{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}}</ref> NASA also made ] tiles available to schools and universities for less than US$25 each.<ref name=tiles>{{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}}</ref> About 7,000 tiles were available on a ] basis, limited to one per institution.<ref name=tiles/>

On April 12, 2011, NASA announced selection of locations for the remaining Shuttle orbiters:<ref name=NASA_New_Homes_for_Orbiters>{{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}}</ref><ref name="intrepid">{{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/|accessdate=April 12, 2011 |newspaper=The New York Times|date=April 12, 2011| accessdate=July 11, 2011}}</ref>

* ''Atlantis'' is on display at the ], near ], Florida. It was delivered to the Visitor Complex on November 2, 2012.

* ''Discovery'' was delivered to the ] of the ]'s ] in ], near Washington, D.C. on April 19, 2012. On April 17, 2012, Discovery was flown atop a 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft escorted by a NASA T-38 Talon chase aircraft in a final farewell flight. The 747 and Discovery flew over Washington, D.C. and the metropolitan area around 10&nbsp;am and arrived at Dulles around 11&nbsp;am. The flyover and landing were widely covered on national news media.

]
* ''Endeavour'' was delivered to the ] in Los Angeles, California on October 14, 2012. It arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on September 21, 2012, concluding a two-day, cross country journey atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft after stops at Ellington Field in Houston, Biggs Army Airfield in El Paso and the Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

* ''Enterprise'' (atmospheric test orbiter) was on display at the National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center but was moved to New York City's ] in mid-2012.<ref name="shuttle_sale" />

* '']'', a full-scale orbiter mockup with interior access, formerly on display at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, was delivered by barge to the ] in Houston, Texas for display at ].

Flight and mid-deck training hardware will be taken from the ] and will go to the National Air and Space Museum and the ]. The full fuselage mockup, which includes the payload bay and aft section but no wings, is to go to the ] in Seattle. Mission Simulation and Training Facility's fixed simulator will go to the ] in Chicago, and the motion simulator will go to the ] Aerospace Engineering Department in College Station, Texas. Other simulators used in Shuttle astronaut training will go to the ] in Starke, Florida and the ] in Hampton, Virginia.<ref name="retired shuttle display" />

In August 2011, the ] (OIG) published a "Review of NASA's Selection of Display Locations for the Space Shuttle Orbiters"; the review had four main findings:<ref name="oigreview">{{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= ] |page= 26 |accessdate= 2011-10-05}}</ref> <!-- this references has significant details that should be added -->
*"NASA's decisions regarding Orbiter placement were the result of an Agency-created process that emphasized above all other considerations locating the Orbiters in places where the most people would have the opportunity to view them";
*"the Team made several errors during its evaluation process, including one that would have resulted in a numerical 'tie' among the Intrepid, the Kennedy Visitor Complex, and the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force (Air Force Museum) in Dayton, Ohio";
*there is "no evidence that the Team’s recommendation or the Administrator's decision were tainted by political influence or any other improper consideration";
*"some of the choices NASA made during the selection process – specifically, its decision to manage aspects of the selection as if it were a competitive procurement and to delay announcement of its placement decisions until April 2011 (more than 2 years after it first solicited information from interested entities)—may intensify challenges to the Agency and the selectees as they work to complete the process of placing the Orbiters in their new homes."
The NASA OIG had three recommendations, saying NASA should:<ref name="oigreview"/>
*"expeditiously review recipients' financial, logistical, and curatorial display plans to ensure they are feasible and consistent with the Agency's educational goals and processing and delivery schedules";
*"ensure that recipient payments are closely coordinated with processing schedules, do not impede NASA's ability to efficiently prepare the Orbiters for museum display, and provide sufficient funds in advance of the work to be performed; and"
*"work closely with the recipient organizations to minimize the possibility of delays in the delivery schedule that could increase the Agency's costs or impact other NASA missions and priorities."

In September 2011, the CEO and two board members of Seattle's Museum of Flight met with NASA Administrator ], 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 ]'s exhibit site.<ref>{{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}}</ref>

==Space Shuttle successors and legacy==
{{Main|Space Shuttle retirement}} {{Main|Space Shuttle retirement}}
]
]
Until another US manned spacecraft is ready, crews will travel to and from the International Space Station (ISS) exclusively aboard the Russian ] spacecraft.


The Space Shuttle retirement was announced in January 2004.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-347}} President ] announced his ], which called for the retirement of the Space Shuttle once it completed construction of the ISS.<ref name="vision">{{cite web
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.<ref name=coppinger>{{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}}</ref> In September 2011, ] announced the selection of the design for the new ] that is planned to launch the ] and other hardware to missions beyond low earth-orbit.<ref name="New Heavy-lift Rocket Will Take Humans Far Beyond Earth">{{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}}</ref><ref name="NASA Briefing on Deep Space Launch System">{{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}}</ref><ref name="Space & Cosmos">{{cite news|url=http://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}}</ref>
|title = The Vision for Space Exploration
|publisher = NASA
|date = February 2004
|url = https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf
|access-date = July 6, 2020
|archive-date = January 11, 2012
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120111212213/http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf
|url-status = live
}}</ref><ref name="bush_speech">{{cite web |last=Bush |first=George W. |author-link=George W. Bush |date=January 14, 2004 |title=President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program |url=https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041018053912/https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm |archive-date=October 18, 2004 |access-date=July 6, 2020 |publisher=NASA}}</ref> To ensure the ISS was properly assembled, the contributing partners determined the need for 16 remaining assembly missions in March 2006.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-349}} One additional Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission was approved in October 2006.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-352}} Originally, ] was to be the final Space Shuttle mission. However, the ''Columbia'' disaster resulted in additional orbiters being prepared for ] in the event of a rescue mission. As ''Atlantis'' was prepared for the final launch-on-need mission, the decision was made in September 2010 that it would fly as ] with a four-person crew that could remain at the ISS in the event of an emergency.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-355}} STS-135 launched on July 8, 2011, and landed at the KSC on July 21, 2011, at 5:57&nbsp;a.m.&nbsp;EDT (09:57&nbsp;UTC).<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-398}} From then until the launch of ] Demo-2 on May 30, 2020, the US launched its astronauts aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft.<ref name="nytimes_crewdragon">{{cite web |last=Chang |first=Kenneth |title=SpaceX Lifts NASA Astronauts to Orbit, Launching New Era of Spaceflight |work=The New York Times |date=May 30, 2020 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/science/spacex-nasa-astronauts.html |access-date=July 5, 2020 |archive-date=August 10, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200810172446/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/30/science/spacex-nasa-astronauts.html |url-status=live}}</ref>


Following each orbiter's final flight, it was processed to make it safe for display. The OMS and RCS systems used presented the primary dangers due to their toxic ], and most of their components were permanently removed to prevent any dangerous outgassing.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-443}} ''Atlantis'' is on display at the ] in Florida,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-456}} ''Discovery'' is on display at the ] in Virginia,<ref name="jenkins2016" />{{rp|III-451}} ''Endeavour'' is on display at the ] in Los Angeles,<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-457}} and ''Enterprise'' is displayed at the ] in New York.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-464}} Components from the orbiters were transferred to the US Air Force, ISS program, and Russian and Canadian governments. The engines were removed to be used on the ], and spare RS-25 nozzles were attached for display purposes.<ref name=jenkins2016 />{{rp|III-445}}
The ] program began in 2006 with the purpose of creating commercially operated unmanned cargo vehicles to service the ISS.<ref>{{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}}</ref> The ] ] became operational in 2012, and the ]' ], is expected to be launched in September 2013. The ] (CCDev) program was initiated in 2010 with the purpose of creating 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.<ref>{{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}}</ref> These spacecraft are expected to become operational in the mid-2010s.<ref>{{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}}</ref>
<!-- All content about the craft in fictional and gaming use has been moved to ], please see ].

-->
==In culture==
]
<!--Please don't list every single TV show/movie the Shuttle is mentioned on or appears in. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list! Unless you have an example that is much, much, much better than those already here, don't insert it. We could use a novel or two, and a videogame, but the Shuttle should be an important part of the story, not just a casual mention. ('']'''s opening scene is a casual mention, for example.-->

Space Shuttles have been features of fiction and nonfiction, from movies for kids to documentaries. Early examples include the 1979 ] film, '']'', the 1982 ] videogame ''Space Shuttle: A Journey into Space'' (1982) and ]'s 1981 novel '']''. In the 1986 film '']'', ''Atlantis'' accidentally launched into space with a group of ] participants as its crew. The 1998 film '']'' portrayed a combined crew of offshore oil rig workers and US military staff who pilot two modified Shuttles to avert the destruction of Earth by an asteroid. Retired American test pilots visited a Russian satellite in the 2000 ] adventure film '']''. 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 the vehicle designed to restart the core. The 2004 Bollywood movie '']'', where a Space Shuttle was used to launch a special rainfall monitoring satellite, was filmed at Kennedy Space Center in the year following the ] that had taken the life of Indian-American astronaut ]. On television, the 1996 drama '']'' portrayed the lives of a group of NASA astronauts as they prepared for and flew Shuttle missions. '']'' was a short lived sci-fi series that featured the crew of a Space Shuttle as the last survivors of a disaster that destroyed Earth.
<!--Please don't list every single TV show/movie the shuttle is mentioned on or appears in. This is not meant to be a comprehensive list! Unless you have an example that is much, much, much better than those already here, don't insert it. We could use a novel or two, and a videogame, but the Shuttle should be an important part of the story, not just a casual mention. '']'''s opening scene is a casual mention, for example. Also in the X file episode '']'' -->

The Space Shuttle has also been the subject of toys and models; for example, a large ] Space Shuttle model was constructed by visitors at Kennedy Space Center,<ref>, Page 55, Quote:"she went to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, where she helped visitors build the world's largest Lego Space Shuttle"</ref> and smaller models have been sold commercially as a standard "LegoLand" set. A 1984 pinball machine "]" was produced by Williams and features a plastic Space Shuttle model among other artwork of astronauts on the play field.

===US postage commemorations===
{{Main|U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps#Space Shuttle Issues}}

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 ].<ref>. Smithsonian, ]</ref> ]


==See also== ==See also==
{{Portal|Spaceflight}} {{portal|Rocketry|Spaceflight}}
* {{section link|Aircraft in fiction|Space Shuttle orbiter}}
{{div col}}
* ]
* ]
* ]


'''Similar spacecraft'''
===Space Shuttle related===
* ] – Soviet reusable spaceplane
*]
* ]
*]
*] * ]
* ] (cancelled)
*]
* ] (cancelled)
*]
*], coverage of launches and missions
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


===Physics=== ==Notes==
{{notelist}}
*]
*]


==References==
===Similar spacecraft===
{{reflist}}
*], Soviet Space shuttle program (1974–1992)
*]
*]
*DIRECT, a vehicle proposed as an alternative for ]
*]
*] (1975–1992)
*]
*] (cancelled)
*]
*] spacecraft
*]
*] (1957–1963)
*] of Lockheed Martin (1995–2001)
{{div col end}}


==External links== ==External links==
{{Commons}} {{Commons and category}}
]

===Further reading===
* *
* *
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210209023806/http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/orbiters.html |date=February 9, 2021 }}
*
*
*
*
* from ]
*

*{{HAER |survey=TX-116 |id=tx1106 |title=Space Transportation System, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, Harris County, TX |dwgs=6 |data=728}}
===NASA===
* (simulator pilot report, detailed and illustrated), ], April 1999, ''AOPA Pilot'', p.&nbsp;85., at BarrySchiff.com
*
*: Current status of shuttle missions
*Official NASA system
*
*
* (many of which are on-line)

===Non-NASA===
* From Boston.com. (May 14, 2010)
*
*
* and a
*
* (ger.)
*
*
*
* : Software development for the Space Shuttle
* Photos of STS-135 taking off and reaching orbit
*
*{{Guardiantopic|science/space-shuttle}}
* collected news and commentary at '']''
*{{Worldcat subject|lccn-n81-148041|the Space Shuttle Program (U.S.)}}
*Swaby, Rachel. , '']'', June 28, 2011
* {{Internet Archive short film|id=gov.archives.arc.1157922|name="Space Shuttle: A Remarkable Flying Machine (1981)"}}

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}


{{Space Shuttle}}
{{All U.S. Space Shuttle Missions}}
{{Space Shuttles}}
{{Navboxes {{Navboxes
|list= |list=
{{Space Shuttles}} {{Shuttle-Mir}}
{{Space Shuttle}} {{International Space Station}}
{{ISS modules}}
{{US launch systems}} {{US launch systems}}
{{Crewed ISS flights}}
{{NASA navbox}} {{NASA navbox}}
{{Orbital launch systems}} {{Orbital launch systems}}
{{Reusable launch systems}} {{Reusable launch systems}}
{{Spaceflight}} {{Spaceflight}}
{{Crewed spacecraft}}
{{US history}}
}} }}
{{Authority control}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2012}}


] ]
] ]
]
]
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]

]
{{Link GA|de}}
]
{{Link FA|hr}}
]
{{Link FA|hu}}
]
{{Link FA|sk}}
{{Link GA|it}}

Latest revision as of 08:22, 6 January 2025

Partially reusable launch system and space plane This article is about a spacecraft system used by NASA. For space shuttles in general, see spacecraft and spaceplane. For the spaceplane component of the Space Shuttle, see Space Shuttle orbiter.

Space Shuttle
Discovery lifts off at the start of the STS-120 mission.
FunctionCrewed orbital launch and reentry
Manufacturer
Country of originUnited States
Project costUS$211 billion (2012)
Cost per launchUS$450 million (2011)
Size
Height56.1 m (184 ft)
Diameter8.7 m (29 ft)
Mass2,030,000 kg (4,480,000 lb)
Stages
Capacity
Payload to LEO
Altitude204 km (127 mi)
Mass27,500 kg (60,600 lb)
Payload to ISS
Altitude407 km (253 mi)
Mass16,050 kg (35,380 lb)
Payload to GTO
Mass4,940 kg (10,890 lb) with Inertial Upper Stage
Payload to GEO
Mass2,270 kg (5,000 lb) with Inertial Upper Stage
Payload to Earth, returned
Mass14,400 kg (31,700 lb)
Launch history
StatusRetired
Launch sites
Total launches135
Success(es)133
Failure(s)2
First flight12 April 1981 (STS-1)
Last flight21 July 2011 (STS-135)
Boosters – Solid Rocket Boosters
No. boosters2
Maximum thrust13,000 kN (3,000,000 lbf)
Total thrust27,000 kN (6,000,000 lbf)
Specific impulse242 s (2.37 km/s)
Burn time124 seconds
PropellantPBANAPCP
First stage – Orbiter + external tank
Powered by3 × RS-25 engines on Orbiter
Maximum thrust1,750 kN (390,000 lbf) at sea level
Specific impulse455 s (4.46 km/s)
Burn time480 seconds
PropellantLH2 / LOX in external tank
Type of passengers/cargo
[edit on Wikidata]
Part of a series on
Spaceflight
History
Applications
Spacecraft
Robotic spacecraft
Crewed spacecraft
Space launch
Spaceflight types
List of space organizations
Spaceflight portal

The Space Shuttle is a retired, partially reusable low Earth orbital spacecraft system operated from 1981 to 2011 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 the 1969 plan led by U.S. Vice President Spiro Agnew for a system of reusable spacecraft where it was the only item funded for development.

The first (STS-1) of four orbital test flights occurred in 1981, leading to operational flights (STS-5) beginning in 1982. Five complete Space Shuttle orbiter vehicles were built and flown on a total of 135 missions from 1981 to 2011. They 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, participated in the Shuttle-Mir program with Russia, and participated in the construction and servicing of the International Space Station (ISS). The Space Shuttle fleet's total mission time was 1,323 days.

Space Shuttle components include 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 orbiter's three main engines, which were fueled from the ET. The SRBs were jettisoned before the vehicle reached orbit, while the main engines continued to operate, and the ET was jettisoned after main engine cutoff and 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 deorbit and reenter the atmosphere. The orbiter was protected during reentry by its thermal protection system tiles, and it glided as a spaceplane to a runway landing, usually to the Shuttle Landing Facility at KSC, Florida, or to Rogers Dry Lake in Edwards Air Force Base, California. If the landing occurred at Edwards, the orbiter was flown back to the KSC atop the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA), a specially modified Boeing 747 designed to carry the shuttle above it.

The first orbiter, Enterprise, was built in 1976 and used in Approach and Landing Tests (ALT), but 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 14 astronauts killed. A fifth operational (and sixth in total) orbiter, Endeavour, was built in 1991 to replace Challenger. The three surviving operational vehicles were retired from service following Atlantis's final flight on July 21, 2011. The U.S. relied on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to transport astronauts to the ISS from the last Shuttle flight until the launch of the Crew Dragon Demo-2 mission in May 2020.

Design and development

Historical background

In the late 1930s, the German government launched the "Amerikabomber" project, and Eugen Sanger's idea, together with mathematician Irene Bredt, was a winged rocket called the Silbervogel (German for "silver bird"). During the 1950s, the United States Air Force proposed using a reusable piloted glider to perform military operations such as reconnaissance, satellite attack, and air-to-ground weapons employment. In the late 1950s, the Air Force began developing the partially reusable X-20 Dyna-Soar. The Air Force collaborated with NASA on the Dyna-Soar and began training six pilots in June 1961. The rising costs of development and the prioritization of Project Gemini led to the cancellation of the Dyna-Soar program in December 1963. In addition to the Dyna-Soar, the Air Force had conducted a study in 1957 to test the feasibility of reusable boosters. This became the basis for the aerospaceplane, a fully reusable spacecraft that was never developed beyond the initial design phase in 1962–1963.

Beginning in the early 1950s, NASA and the Air Force collaborated on developing lifting bodies to test aircraft that primarily generated lift from their fuselages instead of wings, and tested the NASA M2-F1, Northrop M2-F2, Northrop M2-F3, Northrop HL-10, Martin Marietta X-24A, and the Martin Marietta X-24B. The program tested aerodynamic characteristics that would later be incorporated in design of the Space Shuttle, including unpowered landing from a high altitude and speed.

Design process

Main article: Space Shuttle design process

On September 24, 1966, as the Apollo space program neared its design completion, NASA and the Air Force released a joint study concluding that a new vehicle was required to satisfy their respective future demands and that a partially reusable system would be the most cost-effective solution. The head of the NASA Office of Manned Space Flight, George Mueller, announced the plan for a reusable shuttle on August 10, 1968. NASA issued a request for proposal (RFP) for designs of the Integral Launch and Reentry Vehicle (ILRV) on October 30, 1968. Rather than award a contract based upon initial proposals, NASA announced a phased approach for the Space Shuttle contracting and development; Phase A was a request for studies completed by competing aerospace companies, Phase B was a competition between two contractors for a specific contract, Phase C involved designing the details of the spacecraft components, and Phase D was the production of the spacecraft.

In December 1968, NASA created the Space Shuttle Task Group to determine the optimal design for a reusable spacecraft, and issued study contracts to General Dynamics, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and North American Rockwell. In July 1969, the Space Shuttle Task Group issued a report that determined the Shuttle would support short-duration crewed missions and space station, as well as the capabilities to launch, service, and retrieve satellites. The report also created three classes of a future reusable shuttle: Class I would have a reusable orbiter mounted on expendable boosters, Class II would use multiple expendable rocket engines and a single propellant tank (stage-and-a-half), and Class III would have both a reusable orbiter and a reusable booster. In September 1969, the Space Task Group, under the leadership of U.S. Vice President Spiro Agnew, issued a report calling for the development of a space shuttle to bring people and cargo to low Earth orbit (LEO), as well as a space tug for transfers between orbits and the Moon, and a reusable nuclear upper stage for deep space travel.

After the release of the Space Shuttle Task Group report, many aerospace engineers favored the Class III, fully reusable design because of perceived savings in hardware costs. Max Faget, a NASA engineer who had worked to design the Mercury capsule, patented a design for a two-stage fully recoverable system with a straight-winged orbiter mounted on a larger straight-winged booster. The Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory argued that a straight-wing design would not be able to withstand the high thermal and aerodynamic stresses during reentry, and would not provide the required cross-range capability. Additionally, the Air Force required a larger payload capacity than Faget's design allowed. In January 1971, NASA and Air Force leadership decided that a reusable delta-wing orbiter mounted on an expendable propellant tank would be the optimal design for the Space Shuttle.

After they established the need for a reusable, heavy-lift spacecraft, NASA and the Air Force determined the design requirements of their respective services. The Air Force expected to use the Space Shuttle to launch large satellites, and required it to be capable of lifting 29,000 kg (65,000 lb) to an eastward LEO or 18,000 kg (40,000 lb) into a polar orbit. The satellite designs also required that the Space Shuttle have a 4.6 by 18 m (15 by 60 ft) payload bay. NASA evaluated the F-1 and J-2 engines from the Saturn rockets, and determined that they were insufficient for the requirements of the Space Shuttle; in July 1971, it issued a contract to Rocketdyne to begin development on the RS-25 engine.

NASA reviewed 29 potential designs for the Space Shuttle and determined that a design with two side boosters should be used, and the boosters should be reusable to reduce costs. NASA and the Air Force elected to use solid-propellant boosters because of the lower costs and the ease of refurbishing them for reuse after they landed in the ocean. In January 1972, President Richard Nixon approved the Shuttle, and NASA decided on its final design in March. The development of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) remained the responsibility of Rocketdyne, and the contract was issued in July 1971, and updated SSME specifications were submitted to Rocketdyne in that April. That August, NASA awarded the contract to build the orbiter to North American Rockwell. In August 1973, the external tank contract to Martin Marietta, and in November the solid-rocket booster contract to Morton Thiokol.

Development

The Space Shuttle Columbia under construction
Columbia undergoing installation of its ceramic tiles

On June 4, 1974, Rockwell began construction on the first orbiter, OV-101, dubbed Constitution, later to be renamed Enterprise. Enterprise was designed as a test vehicle, and did not include engines or heat shielding. Construction was completed on September 17, 1976, and Enterprise was moved to the Edwards Air Force Base to begin testing. Rockwell constructed the Main Propulsion Test Article (MPTA)-098, which was a structural truss mounted to the ET with three RS-25 engines attached. It was tested at the National Space Technology Laboratory (NSTL) to ensure that the engines could safely run through the launch profile. Rockwell conducted mechanical and thermal stress tests on Structural Test Article (STA)-099 to determine the effects of aerodynamic and thermal stresses during launch and reentry.

The beginning of the development of the RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine was delayed for nine months while Pratt & Whitney challenged the contract that had been issued to Rocketdyne. The first engine was completed in March 1975, after issues with developing the first throttleable, reusable engine. During engine testing, the RS-25 experienced multiple nozzle failures, as well as broken turbine blades. Despite the problems during testing, NASA ordered the nine RS-25 engines needed for its three orbiters under construction in May 1978.

NASA experienced significant delays in the development of the Space Shuttle's thermal protection system. Previous NASA spacecraft had used ablative heat shields, but those could not be reused. NASA chose to use ceramic tiles for thermal protection, as the shuttle could then be constructed of lightweight aluminum, and the tiles could be individually replaced as needed. Construction began on Columbia on March 27, 1975, and it was delivered to the KSC on March 25, 1979. At the time of its arrival at the KSC, Columbia still had 6,000 of its 30,000 tiles remaining to be installed. However, many of the tiles that had been originally installed had to be replaced, requiring two years of installation before Columbia could fly.

On January 5, 1979, NASA commissioned a second orbiter. Later that month, Rockwell began converting STA-099 to OV-099, later named Challenger. On January 29, 1979, NASA ordered two additional orbiters, OV-103 and OV-104, which were named Discovery and Atlantis. Construction of OV-105, later named Endeavour, began in February 1982, but NASA decided to limit the Space Shuttle fleet to four orbiters in 1983. After the loss of Challenger, NASA resumed production of Endeavour in September 1987.

Testing

Enterprise being release from the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft for the Approach and Landing Tests
Enterprise during the Approach and Landing Tests
The Space Shuttle Columbia launching on the first Space Shuttle mission
Columbia launching on STS-1

After it arrived at Edwards AFB, Enterprise underwent flight testing with the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, a Boeing 747 that had been modified to carry the orbiter. In February 1977, Enterprise began the Approach and Landing Tests (ALT) and underwent captive flights, where it remained attached to the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft for the duration of the flight. On August 12, 1977, Enterprise conducted its first glide test, where it detached from the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft and landed at Edwards AFB. After four additional flights, Enterprise was moved to the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) on March 13, 1978. Enterprise underwent shake tests in the Mated Vertical Ground Vibration Test, where it was attached to an external tank and solid rocket boosters, and underwent vibrations to simulate the stresses of launch. In April 1979, Enterprise was taken to the KSC, where it was attached to an external tank and solid rocket boosters, and moved to LC-39. Once installed at the launch pad, the Space Shuttle was used to verify the proper positioning of the launch complex hardware. Enterprise was taken back to California in August 1979, and later served in the development of the SLC-6 at Vandenberg AFB in 1984.

On November 24, 1980, Columbia was mated with its external tank and solid-rocket boosters, and was moved to LC-39 on December 29. The first Space Shuttle mission, STS-1, would be the first time NASA performed a crewed first-flight of a spacecraft. On April 12, 1981, the Space Shuttle launched for the first time, and was piloted by John Young and Robert Crippen. During the two-day mission, Young and Crippen tested equipment on board the shuttle, and found several of the ceramic tiles had fallen off the top side of the Columbia. NASA coordinated with the Air Force to use satellites to image the underside of Columbia, and determined there was no damage. Columbia reentered the atmosphere and landed at Edwards AFB on April 14.

NASA conducted three additional test flights with Columbia in 1981 and 1982. On July 4, 1982, STS-4, flown by Ken Mattingly and Henry Hartsfield, landed on a concrete runway at Edwards AFB. President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy met the crew, and delivered a speech. After STS-4, NASA declared its Space Transportation System (STS) operational.

Description

The Space Shuttle was the first operational orbital spacecraft designed for reuse. Each Space Shuttle orbiter was designed for a projected lifespan of 100 launches or ten years of operational life, although this was later extended. At launch, it consisted of the orbiter, which contained the crew and payload, the external tank (ET), and the two solid rocket boosters (SRBs).

Responsibility for the Space Shuttle components was spread among multiple NASA field centers. The KSC 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 (JSC) served as the central point for all Shuttle operations and the MSFC 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.

Orbiter

Main article: Space Shuttle orbiter
The five Space Shuttle orbiters launching
Shuttle launch profiles. From left: Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour

The orbiter had design elements and capabilities of both a rocket and an aircraft to allow it to launch vertically and then land as a glider. Its three-part fuselage provided support for the crew compartment, cargo bay, flight surfaces, and engines. The rear of the orbiter contained the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME), which provided thrust during launch, as well as the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS), which allowed the orbiter to achieve, alter, and exit its orbit once in space. Its double-delta wings were 18 m (60 ft) long, and were swept 81° at the inner leading edge and 45° at the outer leading edge. Each wing had an inboard and outboard elevon to provide flight control during reentry, along with a flap located between the wings, below the engines to control pitch. The orbiter's vertical stabilizer was swept backwards at 45° and contained a rudder that could split to act as a speed brake. The vertical stabilizer also contained a two-part drag parachute system to slow the orbiter after landing. The orbiter used retractable landing gear with a nose landing gear and two main landing gear, each containing two tires. The main landing gear contained two brake assemblies each, and the nose landing gear contained an electro-hydraulic steering mechanism.

Crew

The Space Shuttle crew varied per mission. They underwent rigorous testing and training to meet the qualification requirements for their roles. The crew was divided into three categories: Pilots, Mission Specialists, and Payload Specialists. Pilots were further divided into two roles: the Space Shuttle Commander, who would seat in the forward left seat and the Space Shuttle Pilot who would seat in the forward right seat. The test flights, STS-1 through STS-4 only had two members each, the commander and pilot. The commander and the pilot were both qualified to fly and land the orbiter. The on-orbit operations, such as experiments, payload deployment, and EVAs, were conducted primarily by the mission specialists who were specifically trained for their intended missions and systems. Early in the Space Shuttle program, NASA flew with payload specialists, who were typically systems specialists who worked for the company paying for the payload's deployment or operations. The final payload specialist, Gregory B. Jarvis, flew on STS-51-L, and future non-pilots were designated as mission specialists. An astronaut flew as a crewed spaceflight engineer on both STS-51-C and STS-51-J to serve as a military representative for a National Reconnaissance Office payload. A Space Shuttle crew typically had seven astronauts, with STS-61-A flying with eight.

Crew compartment

The crew compartment comprised three decks and was the pressurized, habitable area on all Space Shuttle missions. The flight deck consisted of two seats for the commander and pilot, as well as an additional two to four seats for crew members. The mid-deck was located below the flight deck and was where the galley and crew bunks were set up, as well as three or four crew member seats. The mid-deck contained the airlock, which could support two astronauts on an extravehicular activity (EVA), as well as access to pressurized research modules. An equipment bay was below the mid-deck, which stored environmental control and waste management systems.

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, the crew wore one-piece light blue nomex flight suits and partial-pressure helmets. After the Challenger disaster, the crew members wore the Launch Entry Suit (LES), a partial-pressure version of the high-altitude pressure suits with a helmet. In 1994, the LES was replaced by the full-pressure Advanced Crew Escape Suit (ACES), which improved the safety of the astronauts in an emergency situation. Columbia originally had modified SR-71 zero-zero ejection seats installed for the ALT and first four missions, but these were disabled after STS-4 and removed after STS-9.

The view from the Atlantis cockpit while in orbit
Atlantis was the first Shuttle to fly with a glass cockpit, on STS-101.

The flight deck was the top level of the crew compartment and contained the flight controls for the orbiter. The commander sat in the front left seat, and the pilot sat in the front right seat, with two to four additional seats set up for additional crew members. The instrument panels contained over 2,100 displays and controls, and the commander and pilot were both equipped with a heads-up display (HUD) and a Rotational Hand Controller (RHC) to gimbal the engines during powered flight and fly the orbiter during unpowered flight. Both seats also had rudder controls, to allow rudder movement in flight and nose-wheel steering on the ground. The orbiter vehicles were originally installed with the Multifunction CRT Display System (MCDS) to display and control flight information. The MCDS displayed the flight information at the commander and pilot seats, as well as at the aft seating location, and also controlled the data on the HUD. In 1998, Atlantis was upgraded with the Multifunction Electronic Display System (MEDS), which was a glass cockpit upgrade to the flight instruments that replaced the eight MCDS display units with 11 multifunction colored digital screens. MEDS was flown for the first time in May 2000 on STS-101, and the other orbiter vehicles were upgraded to it. The aft section of the flight deck contained windows looking into the payload bay, as well as an RHC to control the Remote Manipulator System during cargo operations. Additionally, the aft flight deck had monitors for a closed-circuit television to view the cargo bay.

The mid-deck contained the crew equipment storage, sleeping area, galley, medical equipment, and hygiene stations for the crew. The crew used modular lockers to store equipment that could be scaled depending on their needs, as well as permanently installed floor compartments. The mid-deck contained a port-side hatch that the crew used for entry and exit while on Earth.

Airlock

The airlock is a structure installed to allow movement between two spaces with different gas components, conditions, or pressures. Continuing on the mid-deck structure, each orbiter was originally installed with an internal airlock in the mid-deck. The internal airlock was installed as an external airlock in the payload bay on Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour to improve docking with Mir and the ISS, along with the Orbiter Docking System. The airlock module can be fitted in the mid-bay, or connected to it but in the payload bay. With an internal cylindrical volume of 1.60 metres (5 feet 3 inches) diameter and 2.11 metres (6 feet 11 inches) in length, it can hold two suited astronauts. It has two D-shaped hatchways 1.02 m (40 in) long (diameter), and 0.91 m (36 in) wide.

Flight systems

The orbiter was equipped with an avionics system to provide information and control during atmospheric flight. Its avionics suite contained three microwave scanning beam landing systems, three gyroscopes, three TACANs, three accelerometers, two radar altimeters, two barometric altimeters, three attitude indicators, two Mach indicators, and two Mode C transponders. During reentry, the crew deployed two air data probes once they were traveling slower than Mach 5. The orbiter had three inertial measuring units (IMU) that it used for guidance and navigation during all phases of flight. The orbiter contains two star trackers to align the IMUs while in orbit. The star trackers are deployed while in orbit, and can automatically or manually align on a star. In 1991, NASA began upgrading the inertial measurement units with an inertial navigation system (INS), which provided more accurate location information. In 1993, NASA flew a GPS receiver for the first time aboard STS-51. In 1997, Honeywell began developing an integrated GPS/INS to replace the IMU, INS, and TACAN systems, which first flew on STS-118 in August 2007.

While in orbit, the crew primarily communicated using one of four S band radios, which provided both voice and data communications. Two of the S band radios were phase modulation transceivers, and could transmit and receive information. The other two S band radios were frequency modulation transmitters and were used to transmit data to NASA. As S band radios can operate only within their line of sight, NASA used the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System and the Spacecraft Tracking and Data Acquisition Network ground stations to communicate with the orbiter throughout its orbit. Additionally, the orbiter deployed a high-bandwidth Ku band radio out of the cargo bay, which could also be utilized as a rendezvous radar. The orbiter was also equipped with two UHF radios for communications with air traffic control and astronauts conducting EVA.

The two computers used in the orbiter
AP-101S (left) and AP-101B general purpose computers

The Space Shuttle's fly-by-wire control system was entirely reliant on its main computer, the Data Processing System (DPS). The DPS controlled the flight controls and thrusters on the orbiter, as well as the ET and SRBs during launch. The DPS consisted of five general-purpose computers (GPC), two magnetic tape mass memory units (MMUs), and the associated sensors to monitor the Space Shuttle components. The original GPC used was the IBM AP-101B, which used a separate central processing unit (CPU) and input/output processor (IOP), and non-volatile solid-state memory. From 1991 to 1993, the orbiter vehicles were upgraded to the AP-101S, which improved the memory and processing capabilities, and reduced the volume and weight of the computers by combining the CPU and IOP into a single unit. Four of the GPCs were loaded with the Primary Avionics Software System (PASS), which was Space Shuttle-specific software that provided control through all phases of flight. During ascent, maneuvering, reentry, and landing, the four PASS GPCs functioned identically to produce quadruple redundancy and would error check their results. In case of a software error that would cause erroneous reports from the four PASS GPCs, a fifth GPC ran the Backup Flight System, which used a different program and could control the Space Shuttle through ascent, orbit, and reentry, but could not support an entire mission. The five GPCs were separated in three separate bays within the mid-deck to provide redundancy in the event of a cooling fan failure. After achieving orbit, the crew would switch some of the GPCs functions from guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) to systems management (SM) and payload (PL) to support the operational mission. The Space Shuttle was not launched if its flight would run from December to January, as its flight software would have required the orbiter vehicle's computers to be reset at the year change. In 2007, NASA engineers devised a solution so Space Shuttle flights could cross the year-end boundary.

Space Shuttle missions typically brought a portable general support computer (PGSC) that could integrate with the orbiter vehicle's computers and communication suite, as well as monitor scientific and payload data. Early missions brought the Grid Compass, one of the first laptop computers, as the PGSC, but later missions brought Apple and Intel laptops.

Payload bay

An astronaut conducting an EVA while the Hubble Space Telescope is in the payload bay
Story Musgrave attached to the RMS servicing the Hubble Space Telescope during STS-61
Atlantis in orbit in 2010. Image shows the payload bay and the extended Canadarm.

The payload bay comprised most of the orbiter vehicle's fuselage, and provided the cargo-carrying space for the Space Shuttle's payloads. It was 18 m (60 ft) long and 4.6 m (15 ft) wide, and could accommodate cylindrical payloads up to 4.6 m (15 ft) in diameter. Two payload bay doors hinged on either side of the bay, and provided a relatively airtight seal to protect payloads from heating during launch and reentry. Payloads were secured in the payload bay to the attachment points on the longerons. The payload bay doors served an additional function as radiators for the orbiter vehicle's heat, and were opened upon reaching orbit for heat rejection.

The orbiter could be used in conjunction with a variety of add-on components depending on the mission. This included orbital laboratories, boosters for launching payloads farther into space, the Remote Manipulator System (RMS), and optionally the EDO pallet to extend the mission duration. To limit the fuel consumption while the orbiter was docked at the ISS, the Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System (SSPTS) was developed to convert and transfer station power to the orbiter. The SSPTS was first used on STS-118, and was installed on Discovery and Endeavour.

Remote Manipulator System

Main article: Canadarm

The Remote Manipulator System (RMS), also known as Canadarm, was a mechanical arm attached to the cargo bay. It could be used to grasp and manipulate payloads, as well as serve as a mobile platform for astronauts conducting an EVA. The RMS was built by the Canadian company Spar Aerospace and was controlled by an astronaut inside the orbiter's flight deck using their windows and closed-circuit television. The RMS allowed for six degrees of freedom and had six joints located at three points along the arm. The original RMS could deploy or retrieve payloads up to 29,000 kg (65,000 lb), which was later improved to 270,000 kg (586,000 lb).

Spacelab

Main article: Spacelab
Spacelab in the payload bay while in orbit
Spacelab in orbit on STS-9

The Spacelab module was a European-funded pressurized laboratory that was carried within the payload bay and allowed for scientific research while in orbit. The Spacelab module contained two 2.7 m (9 ft) segments that were mounted in the aft end of the payload bay to maintain the center of gravity during flight. Astronauts entered the Spacelab module through a 2.7 or 5.8 m (8.72 or 18.88 ft) tunnel that connected to the airlock. The Spacelab equipment was primarily stored in pallets, which provided storage for both experiments as well as computer and power equipment. Spacelab hardware was flown on 28 missions through 1999 and studied subjects including astronomy, microgravity, radar, and life sciences. Spacelab hardware also supported missions such as Hubble Space Telescope (HST) servicing and space station resupply. The Spacelab module was tested on STS-2 and STS-3, and the first full mission was on STS-9.

RS-25 engines

Main article: RS-25
The two engine systems at the aft-section of the orbiter
RS-25 engines with the two Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) pods during STS-133

Three RS-25 engines, also known as the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME), were mounted on the orbiter's aft fuselage in a triangular pattern. The engine nozzles could gimbal ±10.5° in pitch, and ±8.5° in yaw during ascent to change the direction of their thrust to steer the Shuttle. The titanium alloy reusable engines were independent of the orbiter vehicle and would be removed and replaced in between flights. The RS-25 is a staged-combustion cycle cryogenic engine that used liquid oxygen and hydrogen and had a higher chamber pressure than any previous liquid-fueled rocket. The original main combustion chamber operated at a maximum pressure of 226.5 bar (3,285 psi). The engine nozzle is 287 cm (113 in) tall and has an interior diameter of 229 cm (90.3 in). The nozzle is cooled by 1,080 interior lines carrying liquid hydrogen and is thermally protected by insulative and ablative material.

The RS-25 engines had several improvements to enhance reliability and power. During the development program, Rocketdyne determined that the engine was capable of safe reliable operation at 104% of the originally specified thrust. To keep the engine thrust values consistent with previous documentation and software, NASA kept the originally specified thrust at 100%, but had the RS-25 operate at higher thrust. RS-25 upgrade versions were denoted as Block I and Block II. 109% thrust level was achieved with the Block II engines in 2001, which reduced the chamber pressure to 207.5 bars (3,010 psi), as it had a larger throat area. The normal maximum throttle was 104 percent, with 106% or 109% used for mission aborts.

Orbital Maneuvering System

Main article: Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering System

The Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) consisted of two aft-mounted AJ10-190 engines and the associated propellant tanks. The AJ10 engines used monomethylhydrazine (MMH) oxidized by dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4). The pods carried a maximum of 2,140 kg (4,718 lb) of MMH and 3,526 kg (7,773 lb) of N2O4. The OMS engines were used after main engine cut-off (MECO) for orbital insertion. Throughout the flight, they were used for orbit changes, as well as the deorbit burn prior to reentry. Each OMS engine produced 27,080 N (6,087 lbf) of thrust, and the entire system could provide 305 m/s (1,000 ft/s) of velocity change.

Thermal protection system

Main article: Space Shuttle thermal protection system

The orbiter was protected from heat during reentry by the thermal protection system (TPS), a thermal soaking protective layer around the orbiter. In contrast with previous US spacecraft, which had used ablative heat shields, the reusability of the orbiter required a multi-use heat shield. During reentry, the TPS experienced temperatures up to 1,600 °C (3,000 °F), but had to keep the orbiter vehicle's aluminum skin temperature below 180 °C (350 °F). The TPS primarily consisted of four types of tiles. The nose cone and leading edges of the wings experienced temperatures above 1,300 °C (2,300 °F), and were protected by reinforced carbon-carbon tiles (RCC). Thicker RCC tiles were developed and installed in 1998 to prevent damage from micrometeoroid and orbital debris, and were further improved after RCC damage caused in the Columbia disaster. Beginning with STS-114, the orbiter vehicles were equipped with the wing leading edge impact detection system to alert the crew to any potential damage. The entire underside of the orbiter vehicle, as well as the other hottest surfaces, were protected with tiles of high-temperature reusable surface insulation, made of borosilicate glass-coated silica fibers that trapped heat in air pockets and redirected it out. Areas on the upper parts of the orbiter vehicle were coated in tiles of white low-temperature reusable surface insulation with similar composition, which provided protection for temperatures below 650 °C (1,200 °F). The payload bay doors and parts of the upper wing surfaces were coated in reusable Nomex felt surface insulation or in beta cloth, as the temperature there remained below 370 °C (700 °F).

External tank

Main article: Space Shuttle external tank
The ET from STS-115 after separation from the orbiter. The scorch mark near the front end of the tank is from the SRB separation motors.

The Space Shuttle external tank (ET) carried the propellant for the Space Shuttle Main Engines, and connected the orbiter vehicle with the solid rocket boosters. The ET was 47 m (153.8 ft) tall and 8.4 m (27.6 ft) in diameter, and contained separate tanks for liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. The liquid oxygen tank was housed in the nose of the ET, and was 15 m (49.3 ft) tall. The liquid hydrogen tank comprised the bulk of the ET, and was 29 m (96.7 ft) tall. The orbiter vehicle was attached to the ET at two umbilical plates, which contained five propellant and two electrical umbilicals, and forward and aft structural attachments. The exterior of the ET was covered in orange spray-on foam to allow it to survive the heat of ascent.

The ET provided propellant to the Space Shuttle Main Engines from liftoff until main engine cutoff. The ET separated from the orbiter vehicle 18 seconds after engine cutoff and could be triggered automatically or manually. At the time of separation, the orbiter vehicle retracted its umbilical plates, and the umbilical cords were sealed to prevent excess propellant from venting into the orbiter vehicle. After the bolts attached at the structural attachments were sheared, the ET separated from the orbiter vehicle. At the time of separation, gaseous oxygen was vented from the nose to cause the ET to tumble, ensuring that it would break up upon reentry. The ET was the only major component of the Space Shuttle system that was not reused, and it would travel along a ballistic trajectory into the Indian or Pacific Ocean.

For the first two missions, STS-1 and STS-2, the ET was covered in 270 kg (595 lb) of white fire-retardant latex paint to provide protection against damage from ultraviolet radiation. Further research determined that the orange foam itself was sufficiently protected, and the ET was no longer covered in latex paint beginning on STS-3. A light-weight tank (LWT) was first flown on STS-6, which reduced tank weight by 4,700 kg (10,300 lb). The LWT's weight was reduced by removing components from the hydrogen tank and reducing the thickness of some skin panels. In 1998, a super light-weight ET (SLWT) first flew on STS-91. The SLWT used the 2195 aluminum-lithium alloy, which was 40% stronger and 10% less dense than its predecessor, 2219 aluminum-lithium alloy. The SLWT weighed 3,400 kg (7,500 lb) less than the LWT, which allowed the Space Shuttle to deliver heavy elements to ISS's high inclination orbit.

Solid Rocket Boosters

Main article: Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster
Two Solid Rocket Boosters that are not attached to an external tank or orbiter
Two SRBs on the mobile launcher platform prior to mating with the ET and orbiter for STS-134

The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) provided 71.4% of the Space Shuttle's thrust during liftoff and ascent, and were the largest solid-propellant motors ever flown. Each SRB was 45 m (149.2 ft) tall and 3.7 m (12.2 ft) wide, weighed 68,000 kg (150,000 lb), and had a steel exterior approximately 13 mm (.5 in) thick. The SRB's subcomponents were the solid-propellant motor, nose cone, and rocket nozzle. The solid-propellant motor comprised the majority of the SRB's structure. Its casing consisted of 11 steel sections which made up its four main segments. The nose cone housed the forward separation motors and the parachute systems that were used during recovery. The rocket nozzles could gimbal up to 8° to allow for in-flight adjustments.

The rocket motors were each filled with a total 500,000 kg (1,106,640 lb) of solid rocket propellant (APCP+PBAN), and joined in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at KSC. In addition to providing thrust during the first stage of launch, the SRBs provided structural support for the orbiter vehicle and ET, as they were the only system that was connected to the mobile launcher platform (MLP). At the time of launch, the SRBs were armed at T−5 minutes, and could only be electrically ignited once the RS-25 engines had ignited and were without issue. They each provided 12,500 kN (2,800,000 lbf) of thrust, which was later improved to 13,300 kN (3,000,000 lbf) beginning on STS-8. After expending their fuel, the SRBs were jettisoned approximately two minutes after launch at an altitude of approximately 46 km (150,000 ft). Following separation, they deployed drogue and main parachutes, landed in the ocean, and were recovered by the crews aboard the ships MV Freedom Star and MV Liberty Star. Once they were returned to Cape Canaveral, they were cleaned and disassembled. The rocket motor, igniter, and nozzle were then shipped to Thiokol to be refurbished and reused on subsequent flights.

The SRBs underwent several redesigns throughout the program's lifetime. STS-6 and STS-7 used SRBs 2,300 kg (5,000 lb) lighter due to walls that were 0.10 mm (.004 in) thinner, but were determined to be too thin to fly safely. Subsequent flights until STS-26 used cases that were 0.076 mm (.003 in) thinner than the standard-weight cases, which reduced 1,800 kg (4,000 lb). After the Challenger disaster as a result of an O-ring failing at low temperature, the SRBs were redesigned to provide a constant seal regardless of the ambient temperature.

Support vehicles

A recovery boat with a recovered Solid Rocket Booster
MV Freedom Star towing a spent SRB (STS-133) to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

The Space Shuttle's operations were supported by vehicles and infrastructure that facilitated its transportation, construction, and crew access. The crawler-transporters carried the MLP and the Space Shuttle from the VAB to the launch site. The Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) were two modified Boeing 747s that could carry an orbiter on its back. The original SCA (N905NA) was first flown in 1975, and was used for the ALT and ferrying the orbiter from Edwards AFB to the KSC on all missions prior to 1991. A second SCA (N911NA) was acquired in 1988, and was first used to transport Endeavour from the factory to the KSC. Following the retirement of the Space Shuttle, N905NA was put on display at the JSC, and N911NA was put on display at the Joe Davies Heritage Airpark in Palmdale, California. The Crew Transport Vehicle (CTV) was a modified airport jet bridge that was used to assist astronauts to egress from the orbiter after landing, where they would undergo their post-mission medical checkups. The Astrovan transported astronauts from the crew quarters in the Operations and Checkout Building to the launch pad on launch day. The NASA Railroad comprised three locomotives that transported SRB segments from the Florida East Coast Railway in Titusville to the KSC.

Mission profile

Launch preparation

See also: Launch commit criteria
The Space Shuttle moving to the launch complex on a crawler-transporter
The crawler-transporter with Atlantis on the ramp to LC-39A for STS-117

The Space Shuttle was prepared for launch primarily in the VAB at the KSC. The SRBs were assembled and attached to the external tank on the MLP. The orbiter vehicle was prepared at the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) and transferred to the VAB, where a crane was used to rotate it to the vertical orientation and mate it to the external tank. Once the entire stack was assembled, the MLP was carried for 5.6 km (3.5 mi) to Launch Complex 39 by one of the crawler-transporters. After the Space Shuttle arrived at one of the two launchpads, it would connect to the Fixed and Rotation Service Structures, which provided servicing capabilities, payload insertion, and crew transportation. The crew was transported to the launch pad at T−3 hours and entered the orbiter vehicle, which was closed at T−2 hours. Liquid oxygen and hydrogen were loaded into the external tank via umbilicals that attached to the orbiter vehicle, which began at T−5 hours 35 minutes. At T−3 hours 45 minutes, the hydrogen fast-fill was complete, followed 15 minutes later by the oxygen tank fill. Both tanks were slowly filled up until the launch as the oxygen and hydrogen evaporated.

The launch commit criteria considered precipitation, temperatures, cloud cover, lightning forecast, wind, and humidity. The Space Shuttle was not launched under conditions where it could have been struck by lightning, as its exhaust plume could have triggered lightning by providing a current path to ground after launch, which occurred on Apollo 12. The NASA Anvil Rule for a Shuttle launch stated that an anvil cloud could not appear within a distance of 19 km (10 nmi). The Shuttle Launch Weather Officer monitored conditions until the final decision to scrub a launch was announced. In addition to the weather at the launch site, conditions had to be acceptable at one of the Transatlantic Abort Landing sites and the SRB recovery area.

Launch

Early ignition and lift-off view of main-engines and SRB (ground-camera view)

The mission crew and the Launch Control Center (LCC) personnel completed systems checks throughout the countdown. Two built-in holds at T−20 minutes and T−9 minutes provided scheduled breaks to address any issues and additional preparation. After the built-in hold at T−9 minutes, the countdown was automatically controlled by the Ground Launch Sequencer (GLS) at the LCC, which stopped the countdown if it sensed a critical problem with any of the Space Shuttle's onboard systems. At T−3 minutes 45 seconds, the engines began conducting gimbal tests, which were concluded at T−2 minutes 15 seconds. The ground Launch Processing System handed off the control to the orbiter vehicle's GPCs at T−31 seconds. At T−16 seconds, the GPCs armed the SRBs, the sound suppression system (SPS) began to drench the MLP and SRB trenches with 1,100,000 L (300,000 U.S. gal) of water to protect the orbiter vehicle from damage by acoustical energy and rocket exhaust reflected from the flame trench and MLP during lift-off. At T−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 hydrogen tank's prevalves were opened at T−9.5 seconds in preparation for engine start.

Shuttle lift-off via on-board camera view.

Beginning at T−6.6 seconds, the main engines were ignited sequentially at 120-millisecond intervals. All three RS-25 engines were required to reach 90% rated thrust by T−3 seconds, otherwise the GPCs 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. Between T−6.6 seconds and T−3 seconds, while the RS-25 engines were firing but the SRBs were still bolted to the pad, the offset thrust would cause the Space Shuttle to pitch down 650 mm (25.5 in) measured at the tip of the external tank; the 3-second delay allowed the stack to return to nearly vertical before SRB ignition. This movement was nicknamed the "twang." At T−0, the eight frangible nuts holding the SRBs to the pad were detonated, the final umbilicals were disconnected, 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. At T−0, the JSC Mission Control Center assumed control of the flight from the LCC.

On-board camera-view of SRB separation.

At T+4 seconds, when the Space Shuttle reached an altitude of 22 meters (73 ft), the RS-25 engines were throttled up to 104.5%. At approximately T+7 seconds, the Space Shuttle rolled to a heads-down orientation at an altitude of 110 meters (350 ft), which reduced aerodynamic stress and provided an improved communication and navigation orientation. Approximately 20–30 seconds into ascent and an altitude of 2,700 meters (9,000 ft), the RS-25 engines were throttled down to 65–72% to reduce the maximum aerodynamic forces at Max Q. Additionally, the shape of the SRB propellant was designed to cause thrust to decrease at the time of Max Q. The GPCs could dynamically control the throttle of the RS-25 engines based upon the performance of the SRBs.

On-board camera-view of external-tank separation

At approximately T+123 seconds and an altitude of 46,000 meters (150,000 ft), pyrotechnic fasteners released the SRBs, which reached an apogee of 67,000 meters (220,000 ft) before parachuting into the Atlantic Ocean. The Space Shuttle continued its ascent using only the RS-25 engines. On earlier missions, the Space Shuttle remained in the heads-down orientation to maintain communications with the tracking station in Bermuda, but later missions, beginning with STS-87, rolled to a heads-up orientation at T+6 minutes for communication with the tracking and data relay satellite constellation. The RS-25 engines were throttled at T+7 minutes 30 seconds to limit vehicle acceleration to 3 g. At 6 seconds prior to main engine cutoff (MECO), which occurred at T+8 minutes 30 seconds, the RS-25 engines were throttled down to 67%. The GPCs controlled ET separation and dumped the remaining liquid oxygen and hydrogen to prevent outgassing while in orbit. The ET continued on a ballistic trajectory and broke up during reentry, with some small pieces landing in the Indian or Pacific Ocean.

Early missions used two firings of the OMS to achieve orbit; the first firing raised the apogee while the second circularized the orbit. Missions after STS-38 used the RS-25 engines to achieve the optimal apogee, and used the OMS engines to circularize the orbit. The orbital altitude and inclination were mission-dependent, and the Space Shuttle's orbits varied from 220 to 620 km (120 to 335 nmi).

In orbit

The Space Shuttle Endeavour docked with the International Space Station
Endeavour docked at ISS during the STS-134 mission

The type of mission the Space Shuttle was assigned to dictate the type of orbit that it entered. The initial design of the reusable Space Shuttle envisioned an increasingly cheap launch platform to deploy commercial and government satellites. Early missions routinely ferried satellites, which determined the type of orbit that the orbiter vehicle would enter. Following the Challenger disaster, many commercial payloads were moved to expendable commercial rockets, such as the Delta II. While later missions still launched commercial payloads, Space Shuttle assignments were routinely directed towards scientific payloads, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, Spacelab, and the Galileo spacecraft. Beginning with STS-71, the orbiter vehicle conducted dockings with the Mir space station. In its final decade of operation, the Space Shuttle was used for the construction of the International Space Station. Most missions involved staying in orbit several days to two weeks, although longer missions were possible with the Extended Duration Orbiter pallet. The 17 day 15 hour STS-80 mission was the longest Space Shuttle mission duration.

Re-entry and landing

A view of the commander and pilot during reentry on STS-42
Flight deck view of Discovery during STS-42 re-entry

Approximately four hours prior to deorbit, the crew began preparing the orbiter vehicle for reentry by closing the payload doors, radiating excess heat, and retracting the Ku band antenna. The orbiter vehicle maneuvered to an upside-down, tail-first orientation and began a 2–4 minute OMS burn approximately 20 minutes before it reentered the atmosphere. The orbiter vehicle reoriented itself to a nose-forward position with a 40° angle-of-attack, and the forward reaction control system (RCS) jets were emptied of fuel and disabled prior to reentry. The orbiter vehicle's reentry was defined as starting at an altitude of 120 km (400,000 ft), when it was traveling at approximately Mach 25. The orbiter vehicle's reentry was controlled by the GPCs, which followed a preset angle-of-attack plan to prevent unsafe heating of the TPS. During reentry, the orbiter's speed was regulated by altering the amount of drag produced, which was controlled by means of angle of attack, as well as bank angle. The latter could be used to control drag without changing the angle of attack. A series of roll reversals were performed to control azimuth while banking. The orbiter vehicle's aft RCS jets were disabled as its ailerons, elevators, and rudder became effective in the lower atmosphere. At an altitude of 46 km (150,000 ft), the orbiter vehicle opened its speed brake on the vertical stabilizer. At 8 minutes 44 seconds prior to landing, the crew deployed the air data probes, and began lowering the angle-of-attack to 36°. The orbiter's maximum glide ratio/lift-to-drag ratio varied considerably with speed, ranging from 1.3 at hypersonic speeds to 4.9 at subsonic speeds. The orbiter vehicle flew to one of the two Heading Alignment Cones, located 48 km (30 mi) away from each end of the runway's centerline, where it made its final turns to dissipate excess energy prior to its approach and landing. Once the orbiter vehicle was traveling subsonically, the crew took over manual control of the flight.

Discovery deployed a parachute to slow itself after landing
Discovery deploying its brake parachute after landing on STS-124

The approach and landing phase began when the orbiter vehicle was at an altitude of 3,000 m (10,000 ft) and traveling at 150 m/s (300 kn). The orbiter followed either a -20° or -18° glideslope and descended at approximately 51 m/s (167 ft/s). The speed brake was used to keep a continuous speed, and crew initiated a pre-flare maneuver to a -1.5° glideslope at an altitude of 610 m (2,000 ft). The landing gear was deployed 10 seconds prior to touchdown, when the orbiter was at an altitude of 91 m (300 ft) and traveling 150 m/s (288 kn). A final flare maneuver reduced the orbiter vehicle's descent rate to 0.9 m/s (3 ft/s), with touchdown occurring at 100–150 m/s (195–295 kn), depending on the weight of the orbiter vehicle. After the landing gear touched down, the crew deployed a drag chute out of the vertical stabilizer, and began wheel braking when the orbiter was traveling slower than 72 m/s (140 kn). After the orbiter's wheels stopped, the crew deactivated the flight components and prepared to exit.

Landing sites

See also: List of Space Shuttle landing sites

The primary Space Shuttle landing site was the Shuttle Landing Facility at KSC, where 78 of the 133 successful landings occurred. In the event of unfavorable landing conditions, the Shuttle could delay its landing or land at an alternate location. The primary alternate was Edwards AFB, which was used for 54 landings. STS-3 landed at the White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico and required extensive post-processing after exposure to the gypsum-rich sand, some of which was found in Columbia debris after STS-107. Landings at alternate airfields required the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft to transport the orbiter back to Cape Canaveral.

In addition to the pre-planned landing airfields, there were 85 agreed-upon emergency landing sites to be used in different abort scenarios, with 58 located in other countries. The landing locations were chosen based upon political relationships, favorable weather, a runway at least 2,300 m (7,500 ft) long, and TACAN or DME equipment. Additionally, as the orbiter vehicle only had UHF radios, international sites with only VHF radios would have been unable to communicate directly with the crew. Facilities on the east coast of the US were planned for East Coast Abort Landings, while several sites in Europe and Africa were planned in the event of a Transoceanic Abort Landing. The facilities were prepared with equipment and personnel in the event of an emergency shuttle landing but were never used.

Post-landing processing

Main article: Orbiter Processing Facility
The Space Shuttle Discovery on the runway as ground crews work to get the crew out of the orbiter
Discovery being prepared after landing for crew disembarkment following STS-114

After the landing, ground crews approached the orbiter to conduct safety checks. Teams wearing self-contained breathing gear tested for the presence of hydrogen, hydrazine, monomethylhydrazine, nitrogen tetroxide, and ammonia to ensure the landing area was safe. Air conditioning and Freon lines were connected to cool the crew and equipment and dissipate excess heat from reentry. A flight surgeon boarded the orbiter and performed medical checks of the crew before they disembarked. Once the orbiter was secured, it was towed to the OPF to be inspected, repaired, and prepared for the next mission. The processing included:

  • removal and installation of mission-specific items and payloads
  • draining of waste and leftover consumables, and refilling of new consumables
  • inspection and (if necessary) repair of the thermal protection system
  • checkout and servicing of main engines (done in the Main Engine Processing Facility to facilitate easier access, necessitating their removal from the orbiter)
  • if necessary, removal of the Orbital Maneuvering System and Reaction Control System pods for maintenance at the Hypergol Maintenance Facility
  • installation of any mid-life upgrades and modifications

Space Shuttle program

Main article: Space Shuttle program

The Space Shuttle flew from April 12, 1981, until July 21, 2011. Throughout the program, the Space Shuttle had 135 missions, of which 133 returned safely. Throughout its lifetime, the Space Shuttle was used to conduct scientific research, deploy commercial, military, and scientific payloads, and was involved in the construction and operation of Mir and the ISS. During its tenure, the Space Shuttle served as the only U.S. vehicle to launch astronauts, of which there was no replacement until the launch of Crew Dragon Demo-2 on May 30, 2020.

Budget

The overall NASA budget of the Space Shuttle program has been estimated to be $221 billion (in 2012 dollars). The developers of the Space Shuttle advocated for reusability as a cost-saving measure, which resulted in higher development costs for presumed lower costs-per-launch. During the design of the Space Shuttle, the Phase B proposals were not as cheap as the initial Phase A estimates indicated; Space Shuttle program manager Robert Thompson acknowledged that reducing cost-per-pound was not the primary objective of the further design phases, as other technical requirements could not be met with the reduced costs. Development estimates made in 1972 projected a per-pound cost of payload as low as $1,109 (in 2012) per pound, but the actual payload costs, not to include the costs for the research and development of the Space Shuttle, were $37,207 (in 2012) per pound. Per-launch costs varied throughout the program and were dependent on the rate of flights as well as research, development, and investigation proceedings throughout the Space Shuttle program. In 1982, NASA published an estimate of $260 million (in 2012) per flight, which was based on the prediction of 24 flights per year for a decade. The per-launch cost from 1995 to 2002, when the orbiters and ISS were not being constructed and there was no recovery work following a loss of crew, was $806 million. NASA published a study in 1999 that concluded that costs were $576 million (in 2012) if there were seven launches per year. In 2009, NASA determined that the cost of adding a single launch per year was $252 million (in 2012), which indicated that much of the Space Shuttle program costs are for year-round personnel and operations that continued regardless of the launch rate. Accounting for the entire Space Shuttle program budget, the per-launch cost was $1.642 billion (in 2012).

Disasters

Main articles: Space Shuttle Challenger disaster and Space Shuttle Columbia disaster

On January 28, 1986, STS-51-L disintegrated 73 seconds after launch, due to the failure of the right SRB, killing all seven astronauts on board Challenger. The disaster was caused by the 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 ET, leading to a sequence of catastrophic events which caused the orbiter to disintegrate. 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.

On February 1, 2003, Columbia disintegrated during re-entry, killing all seven of the STS-107 crew, 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 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 imaging of the orbiter and refused the request for the spacewalk, and thus the feasibility of scenarios for astronaut repair or rescue by Atlantis were not considered by NASA management at the time.

Criticism

Main article: Criticism of the Space Shuttle program

The partial reusability of the Space Shuttle was one of the primary design requirements during its initial development. The technical decisions that dictated the orbiter's return and re-use reduced the per-launch payload capabilities. The original intention was to compensate for this lower payload by lowering the per-launch costs and a high launch frequency. However, the actual costs of a Space Shuttle launch were higher than initially predicted, and the Space Shuttle did not fly the intended 24 missions per year as initially predicted by NASA.

The Space Shuttle was originally intended as a launch vehicle to deploy satellites, which it was primarily used for on the missions prior to the Challenger disaster. NASA's pricing, which was below cost, was lower than expendable launch vehicles; the intention was that the high volume of Space Shuttle missions would compensate for early financial losses. The improvement of expendable launch vehicles and the transition away from commercial payloads on the Space Shuttle resulted in expendable launch vehicles becoming the primary deployment option for satellites. A key customer for the Space Shuttle was the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) responsible for spy satellites. The existence of NRO's connection was classified through 1993, and secret considerations of NRO payload requirements led to lack of transparency in the program. The proposed Shuttle-Centaur program, cancelled in the wake of the Challenger disaster, would have pushed the spacecraft beyond its operational capacity.

The fatal Challenger and Columbia disasters demonstrated the safety risks of the Space Shuttle that could result in the loss of the crew. The spaceplane design of the orbiter limited the abort options, as the abort scenarios required the controlled flight of the orbiter to a runway or to allow the crew to egress individually, rather than the abort escape options on the Apollo and Soyuz space capsules. Early safety analyses advertised by NASA engineers and management predicted the chance of a catastrophic failure resulting in the death of the crew as ranging from 1 in 100 launches to as rare as 1 in 100,000. Following the loss of two Space Shuttle missions, the risks for the initial missions were reevaluated, and the chance of a catastrophic loss of the vehicle and crew was found to be as high as 1 in 9. NASA management was criticized afterwards for accepting increased risk to the crew in exchange for higher mission rates. Both the Challenger and Columbia reports explained that NASA culture had failed to keep the crew safe by not objectively evaluating the potential risks of the missions.

Retirement

Main article: Space Shuttle retirement
Atlantis being towed back with some workers in the front after its final landing
Atlantis after its final landing, marking the end of the Space Shuttle Program

The Space Shuttle retirement was announced in January 2004. President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration, which called for the retirement of the Space Shuttle once it completed construction of the ISS. To ensure the ISS was properly assembled, the contributing partners determined the need for 16 remaining assembly missions in March 2006. One additional Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission was approved in October 2006. Originally, STS-134 was to be the final Space Shuttle mission. However, the Columbia disaster resulted in additional orbiters being prepared for launch on need in the event of a rescue mission. As Atlantis was prepared for the final launch-on-need mission, the decision was made in September 2010 that it would fly as STS-135 with a four-person crew that could remain at the ISS in the event of an emergency. STS-135 launched on July 8, 2011, and landed at the KSC on July 21, 2011, at 5:57 a.m. EDT (09:57 UTC). From then until the launch of Crew Dragon Demo-2 on May 30, 2020, the US launched its astronauts aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

Following each orbiter's final flight, it was processed to make it safe for display. The OMS and RCS systems used presented the primary dangers due to their toxic hypergolic propellant, and most of their components were permanently removed to prevent any dangerous outgassing. Atlantis is on display at the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex in Florida, Discovery is on display at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Virginia, Endeavour is on display at the California Science Center in Los Angeles, and Enterprise is displayed at the Intrepid Museum in New York. Components from the orbiters were transferred to the US Air Force, ISS program, and Russian and Canadian governments. The engines were removed to be used on the Space Launch System, and spare RS-25 nozzles were attached for display purposes.

See also

Similar spacecraft

Notes

  1. In this case, the number of successes is determined by the number of successful Space Shuttle missions.
  2. STS-1 and STS-2 were the only Space Shuttle missions that used a white fire-retardant coating on the external tank. Subsequent missions did not use the latex coating to reduce the mass, and the external tank appeared orange.
  3. A roll reversal is a maneuver where the bank angle is altered from one side to another. They are used to control the deviation of the azimuth from the prograde vector that results from using high bank angles to create drag.

References

  1. Bray, Nancy (August 3, 2017). "Kennedy Space Center FAQ". NASA. Archived from the original on November 2, 2019. Retrieved July 13, 2022.
  2. ^ Jenkins, Dennis R. (2001). Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System. Voyageur Press. ISBN 978-0-9633974-5-4.
  3. ^ "Inertial Upper Stage". Rocket and Space Technology. November 2017. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  4. Woodcock, Gordon R. (1986). Space stations and platforms. Orbit Book co. ISBN 978-0-89464-001-8. Retrieved April 17, 2012. The present limit on Shuttle landing payload is 14,400 kg (31,700 lb). This value applies to payloads intended for landing.
  5. ^ Dunbar, Brian (March 5, 2006). "Solid Rocket Boosters". NASA. Archived from the original on April 6, 2013. Retrieved July 19, 2021.
  6. Kyle, Ed. "STS Data Sheet". spacelaunchreport.com. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved May 4, 2018.
  7. ^ Williamson, Ray (1999). "Developing the Space Shuttle" (PDF). Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Volume IV: Accessing Space. Washington, D.C.: NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 31, 2020. Retrieved April 23, 2019.
  8. ^ Launius, Roger D. (1969). "Space Task Group Report, 1969". NASA. Archived from the original on January 14, 2016. Retrieved March 22, 2020.
  9. "The Space Shuttle's First Flight: STS-1".
  10. Malik, Tarik (July 21, 2011). "NASA's Space Shuttle By the Numbers: 30 Years of a Spaceflight Icon". Space.com. Archived from the original on October 16, 2015. Retrieved June 18, 2014.
  11. Smith, Yvette (June 1, 2020). "Demo-2: Launching Into History". NASA. Archived from the original on February 21, 2021. Retrieved February 18, 2021.
  12. Wall, Mike (June 28, 2011). "How the Space Shuttle Was Born". Space.com. Archived from the original on March 30, 2023. Retrieved March 30, 2023.
  13. Reed, R. Dale (January 1, 1997). Wingless Flight: The Lifting Body Story (PDF). NASA. ISBN 9780160493904. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 18, 2014. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  14. ^ Baker, David (April 2011). NASA Space Shuttle: Owners' Workshop Manual. Somerset, UK: Haynes Manual. ISBN 978-1-84425-866-6.
  15. Guilmartin JF, Mauer JW (1988). A shuttle chronology 1964–1973: Abstract concepts to letter contracts (5 vols.). Houston, TX.: NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX.
  16. Lindroos, Marcus (June 15, 2001). "Introduction to Future Launch Vehicle Plans [1963–2001]". Pmview.com. Archived from the original on July 17, 2019. Retrieved April 25, 2019.
  17. Allen, Bob (August 7, 2017). "Maxime A. Faget". NASA. Archived from the original on December 19, 2019. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  18. United States 3,702,688, Maxime A. Faget, "Space Shuttle Vehicle and System", published November 14, 1972  Archived April 24, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
  19. Lethbridge, Cliff. "SPACE SHUTTLE". Spaceline.org. Archived from the original on March 31, 2023. Retrieved March 31, 2023.
  20. Howell, Elizabeth (October 9, 2012). "Enterprise: The Test Shuttle". Space.com. Archived from the original on August 6, 2020. Retrieved April 24, 2019.
  21. ^ Jenkins, Dennis R. (2016). Space Shuttle: Developing an Icon – 1972–2013. Specialty Press. ISBN 978-1-58007-249-6.
  22. ^ White, Rowland (2016). Into the Black. New York: Touchstone. ISBN 978-1-5011-2362-7.
  23. Dumoulin, Jim (August 31, 2000). "Space Transportation System". NASA. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  24. Sivolella, David (2017). The Space Shuttle Program: Technologies and Accomplishments. Hemel Hempstead: Springer Praxis Books. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54946-0. ISBN 978-3-319-54944-6. Archived from the original on April 17, 2021. Retrieved October 17, 2020.
  25. Dumoulin, Jim (August 31, 2000). "NASA Centers And Responsibilities". NASA. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved March 22, 2020.
  26. "Space Shuttle Astronaut Qualifications | Spaceline". Archived from the original on March 24, 2023. Retrieved April 1, 2023.
  27. Bergin, Chris (February 19, 2007). "NASA solves YERO problem for Shuttle". NASASpaceflight.com. Archived from the original on April 18, 2008. Retrieved December 22, 2007.
  28. The Computer History Museum (2006). "Pioneering the Laptop: Engineering the GRiD Compass". The Computer History Museum. Archived from the original on December 4, 2007. Retrieved October 25, 2007.
  29. Dooling, Dave (March 15, 1999). "Spacelab joined diverse scientists and disciplines on 28 Shuttle missions". NASA. Archived from the original on December 24, 2018. Retrieved April 23, 2020.
  30. "Crawler-Transporter". NASA. April 21, 2003. Archived from the original on June 1, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  31. "Joe Davies Heritage Airpark". City of Palmdale. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  32. Chowdhury, Abul (October 10, 2018). "Crew Transport Vehicle". NASA. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  33. Mansfield, Cheryl L. (July 15, 2008). "Catching a Ride to Destiny". NASA. Archived from the original on June 9, 2009. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  34. "The NASA Railroad" (PDF). NASA. 2007. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  35. ^ Diller, George (May 20, 1999). "Space Shuttle weather launch commit criteria and KSC end of mission weather landing criteria". Kennedy Space Center (KSC). KSC Release No. 39-99. NASA. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
  36. Chaikin, Andrew (2007). A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts. Penguin Group. ISBN 978-0-14-311235-8. Archived from the original on April 17, 2021. Retrieved October 17, 2020.
  37. Oblack, Rachelle (March 5, 2018). "The Anvil Rule: How NASA Keeps Its Shuttles Safe form Thunderstorms". Thoughtco.com. Archived from the original on June 8, 2020. Retrieved September 17, 2018.
  38. ^ "NASA's Launch Blog – Mission STS-121". NASA. July 1, 2006. Archived from the original on May 24, 2017. Retrieved May 1, 2020.
  39. Ryba, Jeanne (November 23, 2007). "Sound Suppression System". NASA. Archived from the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved March 22, 2020.
  40. Grinter, Kay (August 28, 2000). "Sound Suppression Water System". NASA. Archived from the original on March 13, 2014. Retrieved April 9, 2020.
  41. Ryba, Jeanne (September 17, 2009). "Countdown 101". NASA. Archived from the original on January 26, 2020. Retrieved March 22, 2020.
  42. Roy, Steve (November 2008). "Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster" (PDF). NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 13, 2018. Retrieved March 22, 2020.
  43. Dumoulin, Jim (August 31, 2000). "Solid Rocket Boosters". NASA. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012. Retrieved March 22, 2020.
  44. "Shuttle Crew Operations Manual" (PDF). NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 16, 2017. Retrieved May 4, 2018.
  45. Space Shuttle Reentry In-depth, July 25, 2020, archived from the original on January 18, 2023, retrieved October 24, 2022
  46. ^ "From Landing to Launch Orbiter Processing" (PDF). NASA. 2002. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 21, 2011. Retrieved June 30, 2011.
  47. Finch, Josh; Schierholz, Stephanie; Herring, Kyle; Lewis, Marie; Huot, Dan; Dean, Brandi (May 31, 2020). "NASA Astronauts Launch from America in Historic Test Flight of SpaceX Crew Dragon". Release 20-057. NASA. Archived from the original on August 20, 2020. Retrieved June 10, 2020.
  48. ^ Rogers, William P.; Armstrong, Neil A.; Acheson, David C.; Covert, Eugene E.; Feynman, Richard P.; Hotz, Robert B.; Kutyna, Donald J.; Ride, Sally K; Rummel, Robert W.; Sutter, Joseph F.; Walker, Arthur B.C.; Wheelon, Albert D.; Yeager, Charles E. (June 6, 1986). "Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident" (PDF). NASA. Archived (PDF) from the original on July 13, 2021. Retrieved July 13, 2021.
  49. "The Columbia Accident". Century of Flight. Archived from the original on September 26, 2007. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  50. "NASA Columbia Master Timeline". NASA. March 10, 2003. Archived from the original on December 25, 2017. Retrieved May 28, 2019.
  51. Griffin, Michael D. (March 14, 2007). "Human Space Exploration: The Next 50 Years". Aviation Week. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved June 15, 2020.
  52. Cook, Richard (2007). Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Ag. Basic Books. ISBN 978-1560259800.
  53. Klesius, Mike (March 31, 2010). "Spaceflight Safety: Shuttle vs. Soyuz vs. Falcon 9". Air & Space. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved June 15, 2020.
  54. Bell, Trudy; Esch, Karl (January 28, 2016). "The Challenger Disaster: A Case of Subjective Engineering". IEEE Spectrum. IEEE. Archived from the original on May 29, 2019. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  55. ^ Feynman, Richard (June 6, 1986). "Appendix F – Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle". Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. NASA. Archived from the original on August 7, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  56. Flatow, Ira; Hamlin, Teri; Canga, Mike (March 4, 2011). "Earlier Space Shuttle Flights Riskier Than Estimated". Talk of the Nation. NPR. Archived from the original on August 8, 2020. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  57. "Columbia Accident Investigation Board" (PDF). NASA. August 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 9, 2004. Retrieved June 18, 2020.
  58. "The Vision for Space Exploration" (PDF). NASA. February 2004. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 11, 2012. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  59. Bush, George W. (January 14, 2004). "President Bush Announces New Vision for Space Exploration Program". NASA. Archived from the original on October 18, 2004. Retrieved July 6, 2020.
  60. Chang, Kenneth (May 30, 2020). "SpaceX Lifts NASA Astronauts to Orbit, Launching New Era of Spaceflight". The New York Times. Archived from the original on August 10, 2020. Retrieved July 5, 2020.

External links

Space Shuttle program
Components
Orbiters
Add-ons
Sites
Operations
and training
Testing
Disasters
Support
Special
Space suits
Experiments
Derivatives
Replicas
Related
U.S. Space Shuttle missions
Completed
(crews)
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
Cancelled
Orbiters
  • indicates failure missions.
Space Shuttle and Buran-class orbiters
United States Space Shuttle program (orbiters)Soviet/Russian Buran programme (orbiters)
  • OK-GLI (BTS-02, atmospheric tests)
  • Buran (1.01, destroyed in 2002)
  • Ptichka (1.02, 95–97% completed)
  • 2.01 (incomplete)
  • 2.02 (partially dismantled)
  • 2.03 (dismantled)
Links to related articles
Shuttle–Mir program
Spacecraft
Missions
Increments
International Space Station
Origins
Support vehicles
Current
Future
Former
Cancelled
Mission control
Administrative
Documentaries
Related
Components
Orbiting
Russian Segment
US Segment
Subsystems
Experimental
devices
ISS components
Former
Major
components
Future
Planned
Spare
hardware
Cancelled
Related
Expeditions
2000–2004
2005–2009
2010–2014
2015–2019
Since 2020
Related
  • Displayed and current expeditions are in underline
  • Future expeditions in italics
  • Category
  • List
ISS Human spaceflights
1998–2004
2005–2009
2010–2014
2015–2019
Since 2020
Future
Individuals
Vehicles
  • Ongoing spaceflights are in underline
  • † - mission failed to reach ISS
Uncrewed spaceflights
2000–2004
2005–2009
2010–2014
2015–2019
2020–2024
Future
Spacecraft
  • Ongoing spaceflights in underline
  • Future spaceflights in italics
  • † - mission failed to reach ISS
Orbital launch systems developed in the United States
Active
In development
Retired
  • * - Japanese projects using US rockets or stages
  • ** - uses Russian engines
  • - never succeeded
  • - no new orders accepted
  • - used Ukrainian first stage
Human spaceflights to the International Space Station
See also: ISS expeditions, Uncrewed ISS flights
1998–2004
International Space Station Emblem
International Space Station Emblem
2005–2009
2010–2014
2015–2019
Since 2020
Future
Individuals
Vehicles
  • Ongoing spaceflights are in underline
  • † - mission failed to reach ISS
NASA
Policy and history
History
(creation)
General
Human spaceflight
programs
Past
Current
Robotic programs
Past
Current
Individual featured
missions
(human and robotic)
Past
Currently
operating
Future
Communications
and navigation
NASA lists
NASA images
and artwork
Related
Orbital launch systems
Current
In development
Retired
Classes
  • This template lists historical, current, and future space rockets that at least once attempted (but not necessarily succeeded in) an orbital launch or that are planned to attempt such a launch in the future
  • Symbol indicates past or current rockets that attempted orbital launches but never succeeded (never did or has yet to perform a successful orbital launch)
Reusable launch systems and spacecraft
Launch systems
Active
Retired
In development
Proposals
Canceled
Spacecraft
Active
Retired
In development
Proposals
Cancelled
Spaceflight
General
Applications
Human spaceflight
General
Programs
Health issues
Spacecraft
Destinations
Space launch
Ground segment
Crewed spacecraft (programs)
Active
Retired
In development
Cancelled
History of the United States
Events
Pre-Colonial
Colonial
1776–1789
1789–1815
1815–1849
1849–1865
1865–1917
1917–1945
1945–1964
1964–1980
1980–1991
1991–2008
2008–present
Topics
Groups
Places
Territorial evolution
Regions
States
Federal DistrictWashington, D.C.
Insular areas
Outlying islands
Cities
Categories: