175 DAY IN THE LIFE: PREPARING FOR THE UNEXPECTED CHAPTER 10 the Russian Segment (considered a safe haven, since that segment does not have ammonia systems) and closed the hatch that connected to the United States On-orbit Segment (USOS). They took readings with a sensitive sensor to determine the level of ammonia in the cabin. The flight control team—especially the flight director, ETHOS, and the capsule communicator (CAPCOM [a holdover term from the early days of the space program])—waited anxiously for the results while they looked for clues in the data to see how much, if any, ammonia was entering the cabin. Already, the flight director anticipated multiple paths that the crew and ground would take, depending on the information received. No ammonia was detected in the cabin of the Russian Segment. At the same time, flight control team members looked at multiple indications in their data and did not see the expected confirming cues of a real leak. In fact, it was starting to look as if an unusual computer problem was providing incorrect readings, resulting in a false alarm. After looking carefully at the various indications and starting up an internal thermal loop pump, the team verified that no ammonia had leaked into the space station. The crew was not in danger. After 9 hours, the flight control team allowed the crew back inside the USOS. However, during the “false ammonia event,” as it came to be called, the team’s vigilance, discipline, and confidence came through. No panicking. Only measured responses to quickly exchange information and instructions. Hearts were pumping rapidly, yet onlookers would have noticed little difference from any other day. A key to the success of the ISS Program is that it is operated by thoroughly trained, well-prepared, competent flight controllers. The above example is just one of many where the team is unexpectedly thrust into a dangerous situation that can put the crew at risk or jeopardize the success of the mission. Both the flight controllers and the crews, often together, take part in simulations. Intense scenarios are rehearsed over and over again so that when a real failure occurs, the appropriate reaction has become second nature. After these types of simulations, team members might figure out a better way to do something, and then tuck that additional knowledge into their “back pocket” in the event of a future failure. Perhaps the most famous example of this occurred following a simulation in the Apollo Program. After the instructor team disabled the main spacecraft, the flight controllers began thinking about using the lunar module as a lifeboat. When the Apollo 13 spacecraft was damaged significantly by an exploding oxygen tank, the flight control team already had some rough ideas as to what they might do. Since the scenario was not considered likely owing to all the safety precautions, the team had not developed detailed procedures. However, the ideas were there. This chapter takes the reader into parts of a simulation to illustrate how the process really works. Material from Chapters 11 and 19 are heavily referenced in this section. Training By the time a flight controller is ready to sit in the Front Control Room, he or she has already undergone years of training. Generally, the team is made up of engineers. Positions and degrees are highly correlated (e.g., an electrical engineer supports the power systems, a computer scientist might support the computer systems) however, this configuration is not strictly required. Math and English majors, and even astronomers, serve as flight controllers. Initial training provides general knowledge of spaceflight operations, the vehicle, visiting spacecraft, the NASA organization, how to work with international partners, and even how to conduct meetings. Flight controller trainees participate in computer- based training and classroom lessons, as well as read manuals and instruction books. After initial technical expertise is achieved, the flight controller in training takes lessons on a Flight Controller Part Task Trainer (Figure 1). These small simulators mimic the telemetry generated for an individual system in a stand-alone fashion. A Station Power, ARticulation, Thermal, and ANalysis (SPARTAN) trainee, for example, will focus exclusively on power system displays and telemetry. This allows the student to see how his or her system will respond to commands or failures. For example, the trainee may execute a procedure while seeing how the real vehicle (i.e., the ISS) will react. Once the basic system knowledge is mastered, the flight controller starts supporting mini simulations (mini sims) as a team (Figure 2). In a mini sim, most of the ISS core functions