sci.space.shuttle FAQ Part E
General Shuttle Questions
last updated Feb. 15, 2001

Compilation copyright © 1997-2001 by Michael R. Grabois. This document may be freely redistributed in various electronic media (including, but not limited to, e-mail, Usenet, and the World Wide Web) in its complete and unmodified form. It may not be reproduced for profit in commercial outlets (such as, but not limited to, CD-ROMs and books) without prior written consent from the author. Other use requires written permission of the author. Except as where noted in the individual answer, all material was written by the compiler of this document. Standard disclaimer: this is in no way officially endorsed by NASA or any of its contractor companies.

Please submit all corrections, additions, and suggestions to WizardImps@hotmail.com.

E1. How many shuttles are there, and what are their names?

[With inputs from Will Marchant, Henry Spencer, Brian S. Thorn, and Frank Johnson]

While there have been five shuttles capable of flying into space, there have been more than that number of shuttle air frames built:

 STA-095   Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory, bldg 16, JSC
 MPTA-098  part of Shuttle-C mockup at Langley (different from OV-098)
 OV-098 *  Pathfinder (MSFC mockup, * = honorary number)		
 OV-099    Challenger (formerly STA-099)
 OV-101    Enterprise
 OV-102    Columbia
 OV-103    Discovery
 OV-104    Atlantis
 OV-105    Endeavour

  MPTA = Main Propulsion Test Article
  OV = Orbiter Vehicle
  STA = Structural Test Airframe

In order of their first mission, the five shuttles built for space travel were named Columbia (102), Challenger (099), Discovery (103), Atlantis (104), and Endeavour (105). Of these all are still in service except for the Challenger, which was destroyed in the 1986 accident.

Enterprise (101) was a test vehicle used for the Approach and Landing tests in the late 1970's; although there were plans to refit it for spaceflight, eventually it seemed easier to rebuild one of the structural test articles instead, which is why Challenger's "OV" number seems out of sequence with the rest.

MPTA-098 was put on the test stand in Stennis to test the SSME's. It wasn't a full airframe, just the aft structure used to support the engines. It was later integrated into a Shuttle-C mockup.

Pathfinder (098*) just a plywood mock-up used to fit check the various facilities used to support the shuttle. Originially it only looked vaguely reminicent of the shuttle. It was later refurbished to look like a real orbiter and went on display in Japan. It is now on display at the Alabama Space and Rocket Center near Huntsville, AL, mated to a spare ET and a pair of filament-wound composite SRB's.

STA-095 is housed at the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory (SAIL) at JSC, where it is used for checking out the orbiter software in a more "real" environment. Various sensors are placed througout the simulated payload bay to simulate the details like the time it takes a signal to travel from one end of the shuttle to the other.

Note that the code number refers to "series" and "vehicle" number, so OV-101 was series 1, orbiter 01; OV-099 was series 0, orbiter 99. There is no OV-100 since that would mean series 1, orbiter 00.

All shuttles are named after historical ships of exploration.

For more on the various shuttles and airframes, go to:

• Orbiter Vehicles, Test Articles, and Retired (KSC): http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/resources/orbiters/orbiters.html
• Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory at JSC: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/pao/tour/buildings/b16.html
• Pathfinder pictures and information: ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/images/shuttle/misc/pathfnd1.jpg, ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/images/shuttle/misc/pathfnd1.txt, ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/images/shuttle/misc/pathfnd2.jpg, ftp://ftp.seds.org/pub/images/shuttle/misc/pathfnd2.txt

<== Return to the FAQ table of contents

E2. Are there any real astronauts here?

There are allegedly a good number of astronauts who read the sci.space.* newsgroups, but most are lurkers or post under pseudonyms. There a couple of former Payload Specialists who occasionally publicly post.

<== Return to the FAQ table of contents

E3. How can I become an astronaut?

[Condensed version of Henry Spencer's answer from the Real Big FAQ]

Here's the short form answer. The crucial thing to remember is that the demand for such jobs vastly exceeds the supply. NASA's problem is not finding qualified people, but thinning the lineup down to manageable length. It is not enough to be qualified; you must avoid being *dis*qualified for any reason, many of them in principle quite irrelevant to the job.

Get a Ph.D. Specialize in something that involves getting your hands dirty with equipment, not just paper and pencil. Degree(s) in one field plus work experience in another seems to be a frequent winner. Be in good physical condition, with good eyesight. If you can pass a jet-pilot physical, you should be okay; if you can't, your chances are poor. Practise public speaking, and be conservative and conformist in appearance and actions; you've got a tough selling job ahead, trying to convince a cautious, conservative selection committee that you are better than hundreds of other applicants. Remember also that you will need a security clearance at some point, and Security considers everybody guilty until proven innocent. Keep your nose clean. Get a pilot's license and make flying your number one hobby; experienced pilots are known to be favored even for non-pilot jobs. Work for NASA; of 45 astronauts selected between 1984 and 1988, 43 were military or NASA employees. If you apply from outside NASA and miss, but they offer you a job at NASA, ***TAKE IT***; sometimes in the past this has meant "you do look interesting but we want to know you a bit better first". Think space: they want highly motivated people, so lose no chance to demonstrate motivation. Keep trying. Many astronauts didn't make it the first time.

An expanded version of this is available at

• Space FAQ 12/13 - How to Become an Astronaut: ftp://ftp.cs.unc.edu/pub/users/leech/FAQ/faq12

The official NASA version, including all the basic requirements and electronic forms, is available at:

• Astronaut Information on the NASA World Wide Web: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/more.html
• Human Resources Office: http://hro.jsc.nasa.gov/hro/astro/Brochure.HTML
• Astronaut Selection Office (JSC): http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/ah/jscjobs/aso/ascan.htm

And for more on Astronaut selection and training, go to:

• Mission Preparation: http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsover-prep.html#stsover-astro
• "So You Want to Be an Astronaut": http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/astronauts/wannabe.html
• Astronaut Selection and Training: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/pao/factsheets/nasapubs/9707006.html
• Astronaut Candidates (Hopeful) mailing list: http://www.ashos.org/

<== Return to the FAQ table of contents

E4. What kind of training do the astronauts go through to prepare for a mission?

Shuttle astronauts spend 1-2 years in generic training as Astronaut Candidates, or ASCANs, before they're qualified to fly as NASA Astronauts. ASCAN training is described in the NASA Technical Reference document. It tells how the ASCANs train in jets, simulators, swimming pools, classrooms, and computers during their year-long program. After they graduate, they typically spend at least one year doing technical work in a particular area before being assigned to a mission. Once they get their slot, it's another 9 months or so of mission-specific training until they launch.

• Official training description: http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsover-prep.html#stsover-astrot

Meanwhile, a flight-assigned crew gets more detailed training that will prepare them for their upcoming mission. The crew of shuttle mission STS-86 (Sept. 1997) put together a home page on their own time that details week-by-week their training for a mission to the Russian space station Mir, from the day the crew was announced up through post-landing.

• STS-86 private crew page: http://www.c-com.net/~shuttle/

<== Return to the FAQ table of contents

E5. Why are the shuttle flight numbers currently so mixed up, and why are there so many missions that begin with the numbers 41 and 51?

[With inputs from Jorge Frank and Henry Spencer]

The really short answer is that the numbers are assigned early in planning, and are not changed when flights are cancelled or rearranged. Station delays, in particular, have caused considerable reshuffling in the last couple of years.

For the answer to the first question, yes, it would be so much easier if they consistently numbered the shuttle flights in the order that they launched. After all, that's what they did in the old days.... like Gemini 7 going before Gemini 6, right? As with those Gemini flights, the shuttle missions are always given the next lowest available flight number, and from that day until launch, that flight number is associated with that flight just to make things easier. Of course, it's not a perfect world, and things happen to muck up the launch schedule -- everything from weather to shuttle and payload hardware to the Hubble Telescope to the Russian economy.

For example, let's look at the missions numbered starting in the late 80's through the 100's in regard to the International Space Station. The flight sequence of assembly missions 2A and 3A was planned out to use available slots STS-88 and 92. STS-89 and 91 were the last two shuttle flights to Mir; STS-90 was the Neurolab research mission; STS-93 was the Chandra X-Ray observatory mission; STS-94 had already been used earlier when STS-83 got a reflight in 1997 (94 was the next unused number at the time); and STS-95 was a research mission. Due to the problems with the Russian economy, the ISS flights kept getting pushed back on the schedule while keeping their numbers. So the ISS delays meant that we'd need a stopgap flight to the station to bring up supplies aboard STS-96 (now given the ISS designation 2A.1). Assembly mission 4A got STS-97 and 5A got STS-98. Then the Space Radar Tomography Mission got added as STS-99, and ISS 6A got the STS-100 designation. Further delays in the launch of the Russian Service Module Zvezda meant another resupply mission to the ISS, 2A.2 as STS-101, but now they'd insert it into the schedule between STS-96 (2A.1) and STS-92 (3A). Once NASA realized that 5A was going to be too much for one flight, they broke it in two, adding 5A.1 as STS-102. Then the Hubble Telescope had gyro problems and they needed to fit a quick launch into the schedule, well ahead of most of the ISS flights; it got STS-103. STS-104 and 105 were announced as ISS 7A and 7A.1. Then due to even MORE Russian delays with Zvezda, they had to break STS-101/2A.2 in half again, to 2A.2a and 2A.2b, which got STS-106. STS-107 is a research mission that will hold its place in the manifest while the ISS may slip past it.... or problems with the payload may slip it out of numerical order. So all the numbering happened sequentially, but they wound up getting launched way out of order.

To date, here's the launch order of what has flown in the last few years and what's planned for the next couple (* = tentative):