National Space Organizations

A Comparison of the Capabilities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA)

by

Glenn Alpaugh

23 April 2006

Regardless of political affiliations, it cannot be denied that many of the

accomplishments in space and triumphs of space research have come about as a result

of the competition between those final two planetary superpowers – the Soviet Union

and the United States. In the final days of the Soviet Union, both nations worked

together on space projects in an effort to rise above their political differences. The

ultimate collapse and fragmentation of the great Soviet power has led to a realignment

of nations. Russia now has its own smaller space program, divested of the other

satellite nations comprising the old union. The new space power of the Old World is a

confederation of 17 European countries – a new union seeking to continue in the bold

tradition of space exploration established by a deceased Soviet superpower. If this new

European Space Agency (ESA) is to step into its role as a world leader in space

programs effectively, it must strive to at least equal the organizational robustness of the

old Soviet space program, while maintaining a world class presence in regard to the

American space program run by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA). A comparison of ESA and NASA programs, facilities, research and

development, and contribution to international space projects will show that the new

agency is more than capable of successfully carrying the torch passed to it from the old

Soviet space program, and that it is a worthy contributor to international space projects

that are a necessity if the nations of the Earth are to fulfill their manifest destiny and

reach out to other worlds in search of knowledge.

The ESA is headquartered in Paris, France, and was established in 1973, when

the earlier existing European Launcher Development Organization (ELDO) and the

European Space Research Organization (ESRO) - created in 1953, were combined.1

1

The ESA has expanded from its eleven original founding members to the following

seventeen member states: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,

Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,

Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Canada, Hungary and the Czech Republic also

participate in some projects under cooperation agreements. 2

The purported mission of the ESA is to shape the development of Europe’s

space capability and ensure that investment in space continues to deliver benefits to the

citizens of Europe.3 This is a far cry from the fallen Soviet Union’s desire to use its

space program for the glory of Communism and the Soviet State, but runs parallel to the

Vision Statement of NASA, which expresses the goal of expanding the frontiers of air

and space to inspire and serve America and to benefit the quality of life on Earth.4

The NASA Mission Statement, however, adopts a more global theme than that of

the ESA statement, expressing a desire to advance and communicate scientific

knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe, while

advancing the human exploration, use, and development of space.5 In this respect, the

NASA Mission Statement would appear to be more focused on the exploration of space

as a means to advance mankind as a species, rather than focusing on a specific group

of nations, as does the ESA Mission Statement.

2 “Facts & Figures,” ESA. http://www.esa.int/esaCP/GGG4SXG3AEC_index_0.html (accessed 19 April, 2006).

3 Ibid.

4 “NASA Mission Statement,” NACC, http://naccenter.arc.nasa.gov/NASAMission.html (accessed 20 April, 2006).

2

The budgets of the two space agencies differ considerably. The ESA has an

annual budget of almost three billion euros, with a large part of it invested in ESA's

launch vehicles (twenty-two percent - currently the most expensive part of the ESA's

activities), while the NASA budget comes in at around sixteen billion dollars (13 billion

euros).6 An important consideration in comparing the disparity in these budgets is the

fact that some of the member-states belonging to the ESA have their own, independent

space agencies as well. Separate agencies in Germany and France, for example,

budget more than an additional combined two billion euros.7 Add these and the budgets

of other independent national space agencies of Europe to that of the ESA, and the

budgeted amount more than doubles. Additionally, some of the more expensive space

projects in Europe are not funded by the ESA, but rather through special agreements

between members of the European Union; the Galileo global positioning system with a

price tag of four billion euros is one example.8

Based on these factors it would appear that, while NASA has a larger budget

than the ESA, the initial numbers are misleading. Combining the ESA budget with the

expenditures and outlays of individual European nations operating national space

agencies of their own yields a substantial windfall that brings the budgets of the ESA

and NASA within viewing distance of each other. Add to this the funds budgeted by the

Russian space agency and the advantage may, in fact, lay with Europe.

The exploration programs of the ESA include such high profile missions as Giotto

(Figure 1) – its first deep space mission, which was used to study the Comets Halley

and Skejllerup as part of the Halley Armada.9 Other contributors to the Armada include

the Soviet Union, France, and Japan. A planned partner probe to Giotto was to be

3

produced by NASA as an additional part of the Halley Armada, but was scrapped as a

result of budget cuts by the American space agency.10

Figure 1. Artist’s rendition of Deep Space Probe Giotto. (Illustration courtesy of Wikipedia.)

The Giotto project was followed by the star-mapping mission known as

Hipparcos (Figure 2), launched in 1989 and named in honor of Hipparchus, with the

letters of the name taken from the term High Precision Parallax Collecting Satellite.11

Both the Giotto and Hipparcos deep space probe missions were resounding successes.

11 Wikipedia, "European Space Agency."

4

Figure 2. Artist’s rendition of Deep Space Probe Hipparcos. (Illustration courtesy of Wikipedia.)

The plethora of missions undertaken by NASA include deep space missions

comparable to those of the ESA. Such asteroidal and cometary missions as NEAR

Shoemaker, Deep Space 1, Stardust, and Deep Impact have broken new ground in

space research.

The NEAR Shoemaker mission was designed to study the near-Earth asteroid

Eros from close orbit over a period of a year, but included a flyby of Asteroid 253

Mathilde (Figure 3).12 Data obtained from this mission will provide information on

conditions in the early solar system and knowledge about the characteristics of

asteroids, meteorites, and comets.13 This mission was similar to the Giotto mission in

5

complexity and technological sophistication.

1 “A History of the European Space Agency,” ESA. http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESAQRHPZ9NC_index_0.html (accessed 20 April, 2006).

5 Ibid.

6 Wikipedia contributors, "European Space Agency," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Space_Agency&oldid=49130463 (accessed April 22, 2006).

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Wikipedia contributors, "Giotto Mission," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giotto_mission&oldid=42345953 (accessed April 15, 2006). (accessed April 22, 2006).

10 Ibid.

12 Wikipedia contributors, "NEAR Shoemaker," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NEAR_Shoemaker&oldid=47120032 (accessed April 20, 2006).

13 Ibid.

6

Figure 3. Trajectory graphic depicting the voyage of the NEAR spacecraft.(Graphic courtesy of NASA.)

The Deep Space 1 spacecraft was launched in 1998 as part of NASA’s New

Millennium Program.14 Similar to the ESA Hipparcos spacecraft, the Deep Space 1 craft

underwent initial failures, but was able to continue with its mission. Undertaken with the

intent of testing new systems with an eye toward utilization in future missions, Deep

Space 1 succeeded in testing most of its new technologies, including its NSTAR

electrostatic Ion engine (Figure 4) – but some of the new systems failed.15

7

Figure 4. Deep Space 1 Ion Engine(Photo courtesy of NASA.)

Overall, the ESA exploration programs are well planned and executed, but seem

to be less numerous than those belonging to NASA. This is partially due to the expertise

cultivated by NASA in its half century of existence.

The ESA has over a dozen satellite projects in place or planned for the near

future. Of those in place, the XMM-Newton (Figure 5) is one of the most impressive.

Containing the most sensitive telescope mirrors ever developed in the world, and

labeled the biggest science satellite ever constructed in Europe, this massive, three-

axis stabilized spacecraft is on a mission to detect and study celestial X-ray sources.16

The telescope derives its name from its X-ray Multi-Mirror design and in honor of Sir

Isaac Newton.

8

Figure 5. Artist’s Rendition of XMM-Newton(Illustration courtesy of D..Ducros and ESA.)

The ESA is also participating in satellite projects with other space agencies. One

such program is known as the TC-2 Double Star – a program run by the Chinese

National Space Administration (CNSA). The ESA was invited to participate in the project

by the CNSA, and accepted a role as a contributor the satellite’s mission – which is to

operate alongside the ESA's Cluster mission, studying the interaction between the solar

wind and Earth's magnetic field.17

The satellite programs of NASA are mature and extensive. Systems for

navigation, communication, defense, meteorology, reconnaissance, and other

applications abound. Satellites placed in orbit over the past fifty years by NASA have

9

spanned a generation of Americans. New and improved systems are being

systematically rotated into aging constellations in a general move toward rejuvenation

and preparation for the demands of a new era of space. Upgrade and enhancement

plans for such satellite systems as the Global Positioning System (GPS) (Figure 6), the

fifth generation of Navstar satellites, are underway – with a first launch expected

sometime in 2012.18

Figure 6. U.S. Navstar Global Positioning System satellite.(Illustration courtesy of CNS.)

The satellite systems of the ESA, those operated solely by the European agency

as well as those shared with other space agencies, are not as numerous as those of

NASA, but they are none the less growing in number. The diversity of satellite types

within the domain of NASA denotes a fully mature and robust satellite program, but the

ESA program is rapidly catching up despite moves by NASA to upgrade and expand.

In regard to military space programs, one has but to follow the money in order to

see the differences between the ESA and NASA. Military space has not traditionally

10

been a priority for European governments, and this stance is reflected in the fact that

only six of these governments have committed to any type of substantial spending on

military space applications.19 As seen in Table-1 below, the disproportion between

European and U.S. military space allocations is not readily apparent when comparing

general defense budgets, but is revealed as significant when viewed as allocations

dedicated to military space spending (1 to 3 versus 1 to 20).20

Table-1. EU / US Ratios (In Billions of Euros for the year 2004).

United States EuropeU.S. to Europe Ratio

Defense Budget Estimated

354 146 <3

Military Space 15.1 0.75 >20

Military Space / Total Defense

4% 0.5%

The concept of military space is not fully mature in Europe, and this is reflected in

the minimal government funding in the only two operational fields - satellite

communications and intelligence imagery.21 The coexistence of multiple national

systems is the closest thing to a European military space program currently in place, but

the ESA is poised to change this according to some reports, which view the ESA in a

new paramilitary role based on its Galileo and GMES (Global Monitoring for

Environment and Security) programs.22

From its inception, NASA has committed itself to a strategic alliance with several

U.S. military organizations. The decades-old relationship was further formalized recently

with the creation of the Partnership Council – a NASA-military alliance created to

11

increase the prowess of U.S. space technology by bringing the agencies of NASA, the

U.S. Strategic Command, the National Reconnaissance Office, Air Force Space

Command, and the Pentagon’s Director of Defense Research and Engineering, to a

common table.23 Some of the technologies likely to benefit as a result of any synergies

achieved from the partnership might include those used in next-generation launch

vehicles, GPS satellite constellations, telecommunications, and radar surveillance from

space, to name only a few.24

In respect to military programs, NASA is clearly the frontrunner when compared

to the ESA. Its tradition of involvement in military applications is part of the NASA

legacy. The ESA, although geared more to commercial programs, is seen to be shifting

to a more paramilitary capability as the nations of Europe awaken to the potential

significance of a military presence in space.

The Research and Development facilities of the ESA are extensive and

widespread throughout the European continent. Expertise in applicable technologies is

apparent in such facilities as the European Space Research and Technology Center

(ESTEC), the European Space Operations Center (ESOC), the European Astronauts

Center (EAC), and the ESA Center for Earth Observation (ESRIN).

The ESTEC is the design hub for most ESA spacecraft and technology

development, and is located in Noordwijk, the Netherlands. The size and capabilities of

some of the ESTEC facilities (for example, the HYDRA high-capacity six-axis hydraulic

(Figure 7)) offer testing opportunities not available elsewhere in Europe.25 Other testing

12

capabilities include a space simulation facility, an acoustic noise testing facility, a

mechanical data handling system, large space simulator (for simulation of in-orbit

environmental conditions), and compact payload test range (for verification of in-orbit

performance of complex radiating systems). Overall, the ESTEC proves to be a

significant and multifaceted test facility.

Figure 7. HYDRA (multi-axis vibration test facility).(Illustration courtesy of ESTEC).

The ESOC is responsible for controlling ESA satellites in orbit and is located in

Darmstadt, Germany. Created in 1967, the ESOC plans missions, operates more than

50 satellites, ensures that ESA spacecraft meet their mission objectives, and maintains

the necessary ground segment infrastructure required to perform these functions.26 The

13

ESOC works closely with the ESA to advance the state of European technology in the

areas of spacecraft operation and communications.27

Located in Cologne, Germany, the EAC is responsible for astronaut training for

future missions. It is the home base of the 13 European astronauts (members of the

European Astronaut Corps), and is where they are trained for a variety of missions -

including those for the International Space Station (ISS).28

The ESRIN is based in Frascati, Italy, and is responsible for the collection,

storage, and distribution of Earth Observation satellite data for partners within the ESA,

and also serves as the ESA’s information technology center.29 Data gleaned through

Earth observation is used to monitor disasters, protect the environment, assist

agriculture and industry, and support European policy goals.30

With liaison offices in Belgium, the United States and Russia; a launch base in

French Guiana; and ground and tracking stations in various areas of the world, the

facilities of the ESA are branched out as a truly global network of cooperative and

cross-functional entities.

As established as the ESA research and development facilities are, those of

NASA are more numerous and have the advantage of a greater historic base to draw

upon. Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle - all names of space programs

providing profound change to the world because of their existence – all children of

NASA research and development.

Each of NASA’s research and development programs and projects support its

four Mission Directorates and are conducted at each of NASA’s Field Centers.31 Typical

of the myriad NASA facilities are:32

14

Ames Research Center - conducting research activities, technology

programs, and flight projects that advance the Nation’s capabilities in civilian

and military aeronautics, space sciences, and space applications

Dryden Flight Research Center - NASA's primary installation for flight

research

Glenn Research Center - designated by NASA as its Lead Center for

Aeropropulsion

Goddard Space Flight Center - lead center for the Earth Observing System,

carries out all aspects of a space-borne science mission from initial concept

to final data archiving, through its six major laboratories

Jet Propulsion Laboratory - engaged in Earth atmosphere and geosciences,

oceanography, planetary studies (including asteroid and comet), and solar,

interplanetary, interstellar, and astrophysical disciplines

Johnson Space Center - lead Center for the Space Shuttle Program,

International Space Station Program, Space Operations, Biomedical

Research and Countermeasures Program, and the Advanced Human Support

Technology Program

Kennedy Space Center - NASA’s primary launch site, also performing design

and development of new payloads, launch vehicles, and new technologies for

future space initiatives

Langley Research Center - develops technology for advanced space

transportation systems and for small spacecraft and instruments by

performing research on analysis/integration/assessment, aerodynamics,

15

aerothermodynamics, hypersonic propulsion, structures, materials,

atmospheric sciences and remote sensing, and airborne systems, including

crew station design and integration

Marshall Space Flight Center - world leader in space propulsion and

transportation systems

Stennis Space Center - primary center for testing and flight certifying rocket

propulsion systems for the Space Shuttle and future generations of space

vehicles

Wallops Flight Facility - operational test site for the next generation of low-

cost launch technologies

White Sands Test Facility - provides a wide variety of test and laboratory

research and development support to all NASA Centers, the Department of

Defense, other Government agencies, and private industry

Center for Space Science - serves as the focal point for civilian space efforts

at Los Alamos National Laboratory, coordinating non-defense space science

and space technology efforts throughout LANL

Each of these facilities exemplify world class organizations dedicated to the

advancement of space research and exploration. Together they form a national brain

trust capable of sustaining a consistent advance in space technology. The ESA

facilities have a long way to go before they can match the capabilities of the NASA

facilities.

In 1998, NASA, Russia, Japan, and the ESA came together to construct the

World’s largest space station in low Earth orbit – the International Space Station

16

(ISS).33 The ESA contribution to the ISS includes the following: 34

Columbus European Laboratory Module (Figure 8) - permanantly

attached to the International Space Station, providing internal payload

accommodation for experiments in the field of multidisciplinary research

into material science, fluid physics and life science

European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) for Servicing and logistics

(Figure 9) - delivers experimental equipment and spare parts as well as

food, air and water for permanent crew of the ESA – scheduled to enter

service in 2007

European Robotic Arm (Figure 10) - able to work with the new Russian

airlock on the ISS, also able to transfer small payloads directly from and to

the interior of the ISS

Data Management System (Figure 11) for the Russian Segment of the ISS

- installed in the Russian Service Module 'Zvezda',as the set of on-board

computers, their avionics and software that provide for the overall control,

mission and failure management of the entire Russian segment of the ISS

Two Connecting Modules (Figure 12) - controls and distributes resources

from the Truss structure and the US laboratory (Destiny) to the other

connected elements

Cupola (Figure 13) - provides a pressurized observation and work area for

ISS crew, giving visibility to support control of the space station remote

manipulator system and general external viewing of Earth, celestial

objects and visiting vehicles

17

Ariane-5 launcher (Figure 14) - used for launches into geostationary orbit,

medium and low-Earth orbits and sun-synchronous orbits

Figure 8. Cut-away of the Columbus European Laboratory Module(Illustration courtesy of ESA).

18

Figure 9. Cut-away of the European Automated Transfer Vehicle(Illustration courtesy of ESA).

Figure 10. European Robotic Arm(Illustration courtesy of ESA).

19

Figure 11. DMS-R: Data Management System for the Russian Segment of the ISS(Illustration courtesy of ESA).

Figure 12. Connecting Module(Illustration courtesy of ESA).

20

Figure 13. Cupola (Illustration courtesy of ESA).

Figure 14. Ariane-5 Launcher(Illustration courtesy of ESA).

21

As documented above, the ESA contributions to the ISS are impressive. When

compared to the contributions of NASA, they remain impressive, but are eclipsed by the

fact that NASA led the project to reality, along with providing critical components such

as connecting modules, a laboratory module, truss segments, four solar arrays, a

habitation module, three mating adapters, a cupola, an unpressurized logistics carrier,

and a centrifuge module:35

As evidenced by this comparison of the ESA and NASA, both agencies are

robust professional organizations representing the culmination of space technology and

expertise of two continents. NASA is the frontrunner of the two when it comes to

funding, infrastructure, longevity, and leadership, but these aspects cannot be

overlooked on the ESA side. The European agency is positioned for growth and is

hungry to capitalize on that position to solidify its role as the dominant force for space

programs in its hemisphere, and eventually, the world. Perhaps, as both agencies

continue to pursue the exploration and exploitation of space, they will capitalize on the

synergies previously experienced in cooperative projects such as the ISS.

22

Illustrations

Figure Page

1. Artist’s Rendition of Deep Space Probe Giotto 42. Artist’s Rendition of Deep Space Probe Hipparcos 43. Trajectory graphic Depicting the Voyage of NEAR Spacecraft 54. Deep Space 1 Ion Engine 65. Artist’s Rendition of XMM-Newton 76. U.S. Navstar Global Positioning System satellite 87. HYDRA (multi-axis vibration test facility) 118. Cut-away of the Columbus European Laboratory Module 129. Cut-away of the European Automated Transfer Vehicle 1710. European Robotic Arm 1711. DMS-R: Data Management System 1812. Connecting Modules 1813. Cupola 1914. Ariane-5 Launcher 19

23

WORKS CITED

Bochinger, Steve. 2005. Europe and Space: The Economic Dimension, EuroConsult, 2005. <http://www.euroconsult-ec.com/pdf_news/Europe%20and%20Space%20the%20Economic%20Dimension.pdf>

David, Leonard. 2002. NASA – U.S. Military Explore Joint Technologies. Space.com News. <http://www.space.com/news/wsc_military_021018.html>

Deep Space 1, 2006. Available from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_Space_1&oldid=47375755>

Dinerman, Taylor. 2006. NASA and ESA: A Parting of the Ways?. Available from The Space Review, Essays and Commentary About the Final Frontier. <http://www.thespacereview.com/article/539/1>

ESA, 2005. A History of the European Space Agency, Available from the ESA Website. <http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESAQRHPZ9NC_index_0.html>.

ESA. 2005. Facilities: Technical and Quality Management. Available from the ESA Website. <http://www.esa.int/techresources/ESTEC-Article-fullArticle_item_selected-2_8_00_par-28_1131951616555.html>

ESA, 2005. Facts and Figures. Available from the ESA Website. <http://www.esa.int/esaCP/GGG4SXG3AEC_index_0.html>

ESA. 2006. International Space Station: Human Spaceflight and Exploration. Available from the ESA Website. <http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESA7YL0VMOC_iss_0.html>

ESA News Release. 2005. China Launches Second Double Star Satellite. Space Flight Now. Pole Star Publications Ltd. <http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0407/25doublestar/>

European Space Agency. 2006. Available from Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Space_Agency&oldid=49130463>

Giotto Mission. 2006. Available from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giotto_mission&oldid=42345953>

Hipparcos Mission. 2006. Available from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparcos>

International Space Station. 1999. Shuttle Press Kit. <http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/ISS_OVR/>

24

Lee, Wayne. 2000. To Rise From Earth, 2nd ed., New York: Checkmark Books.

NACC, NASA Vision. Available from NACC: NASA Mission Statement. <http://naccenter.arc.nasa.gov/NASAMission.html>

NASA Undergraduate Student Research Program. Available from NASA USRP. http://www.vsgc.odu.edu/loc.htm

NEAR Shoemaker. 2006. Available from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEAR_Shoemaker>

Satellites/Current Programs. 2006. Available from The Aerospace Corporation. <http://www.aero.org/programs/satellites.html>

XMM-Newton Fact Sheet. 2006. Available from ESA Space Science. <http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM14YS1VED_index_0.html>

25

NOTES

14 Wikipedia contributors, "Deep Space 1," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deep_Space_1&oldid=47375755 (accessed April 19, 2006).

15 Ibid.

16 “XMM-Newton Fact Sheet,” ESA Space Science, http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM14YS1VED_index_0.html (accessed 18 April, 2006).

17 “China Launches Second Double Star Satellite,” Space Flight Now, European Space Agency News Release, (Pole Star Publications Ltd, 2006) http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0407/25doublestar/ (accessed 22 April, 2006).

18 “Satellites/Current Programs,“ The Aerospace Corporation, http://www.aero.org/programs/satellites.html (accessed 23 April, 2006).

19 Steve Bochinger, “Europe and Space: The Economic Dimension,” EuroConsult, (2005), 1. http://www.euroconsult-ec.com/pdf_news/Europe%20and%20Space%20the%20Economic%20Dimension.pdf (accessed 23 April, 2006).

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Taylor Dinerman, “NASA and ESA: A Parting of the Ways?” The Space Review, Essays and Commentary About the Final Frontier, (2006), http://www.thespacereview.com/article/539/1 (accessed 23 April, 2006).

23 Leonard David, “NASA – U.S. Military Explore Joint Technologies,” Space.com News, (18 October, 2002), http://www.space.com/news/wsc_military_021018.html (accessed 23 April, 2006).

24 Ibid.

25 “Facilities: Technical and Quality Management,” ESA, (10 October, 2005) http://www.esa.int/techresources/ESTEC-Article-fullArticle_item_selected-2_8_00_par-

26

28_1131951616555.html (accessed 19 April, 2006).

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.28

? Ibid.29

? Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 “NASA Undergraduate Student Research Program,” USRP, (2006), http://www.vsgc.odu.edu/loc.htm (accessed 23 April, 2006).

32 Ibid.

33 Wayne Lee, To Rise From Earth, 2nd ed., (New York: Checkmark Books, 2000), 227.

34 “International Space Station: Human Spaceflight and Exploration,” ESA, (21 April, 2006). http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESA7YL0VMOC_iss_0.html (accessed 23 April, 2006).

35 “International Space Station,” Shuttle Press Kit, (1999). http://www.shuttlepresskit.com/ISS_OVR/ (accessed 23 April, 2006).

27