Formerly known as the A3XX, Airbus’ double-decker passenger jet, the A380, will be the largest airliner ever built. Lengthwise, it would nearly stretch from goal line to goal line of a football field while its wing tips would hang well beyond the sidelines. Three full decks will run along the entire length of the plane. Upper and main decks will serve as passenger areas, and will be connected by a grand staircase near the front of the plane and by another smaller staircase at the back. Although the lower deck will be reserved primarily for cargo, it could be outfitted for special passenger uses such as sleeper cabins, business centers or even child care service. In a one-class configuration, the A380 could accommodate as many as 840 passengers. The more likely three-class configuration will still offer an unprecedented 555 passenger seats. Either way, the A380 would offer 30% - 50% more seating than its direct competition, the Boeing 747-400.
Although the A380 will be able to fly a distance of over 10,000 miles, the plane’s usefulness will not be limited to long-haul flights. For instance, many flights within Japan are among the highest in passenger capacity and would be well suited for A380 service, despite their short distances. Whatever the flight distance, a new breed of engines will be required to lift the plane’s 1.2 million pounds into the air. Rolls Royce and GE/Pratt & Whitney are both working on engines to provide thrust that will max out at 75,000 pounds. By comparison, the first American jet airliner in service, the Boeing 707, was powered by only 10,000 pounds of thrust.

As amazing as it will be for this behemoth to take off into the air, the A380 faces significant challenges on the ground as well. To integrate into existing airports, the A380 must fit the standard airport-docking plan. The plane’s nearly 262-foot wingspan meets this requirement by about 18 inches. Its outer-most engines, however, would hang just beyond the standard 150-foot runway width, requiring upgrades at many airports. The plane’s weight will be distributed to 20 landing gear wheels, actually producing less weight per wheel than the 747. The cockpit location, between the main and upper decks, is designed to give pilots a vantage point on the runway similar to that of current airliners.

Due to recent technological advances, Airbus claims the A380 will be a more efficient plane than its rival, the 747. Airbus states the A380 will use 20% less fuel and will fly quieter, cheaper and more environmentally friendly than the 747. Airlines seem to be impressed. So far, ten carriers have declared their interest in the plane, placing options to order a total of 66 planes. The first A380 is scheduled to take flight in September of 2004 and may enter commercial service as early as October of 2005.
SPECIFICATIONS

Manufacturer Airbus
First Flight: September 1, 2004
Wingspan: 261 feet, 10 inches
Length: 239 feet, 6 inches
Height: 79 feet, 1 inch
Weight: 606,000 pounds (empty)
Top Speed: 652 miles per hour
Cruising Speed: 630 miles per hour
Flight Altitude: 43,000 feet
Range: 8,000 miles
Engines: 4 engines Rolls-Royce Trent 900 or Engine Alliance
Passenger
Accommodations: 555 passengers
 

The Airbus A380 is a double-deck, four-engined airliner manufactured by the European corporation Airbus, an EADS subsidiary. The largest passenger airliner in the world, the A380 made its maiden flight on 27 April 2005 from Toulouse, France,[2] and is scheduled to begin commercial flights on 25 October 2007 with Singapore Airlines. The aircraft was known as the Airbus A3XX during much of its development phase, but the nickname Superjumbo has since become associated with it.

The A380’s upper deck extends along the entire length of the fuselage. This allows for a cabin with 50 percent more floor space than the next largest airliner, the Boeing 747-400,[3] and provides seating for 525 people in standard three-class configuration or up to 853 people in full economy class configuration.[4][5] Two models of the A380 are available for sale. The A380-800, the passenger model, is the largest passenger airliner in the world, superseding the Boeing 747. The A380-800F, the freighter model, is designed as one of the largest freight aircraft, with a listed payload capacity exceeded only by the Antonov An-225.[6] The A380-800 has a design range of 15,200 kilometres (8,200 nmi, sufficient to fly from New York to Hong Kong nonstop), and a cruising speed of Mach 0.85 (about 900 km/h or 560 mph at cruise altitude).

History

Development
Airbus started the development of a very large airliner (termed Megaliner by Airbus in the early development stages) in the early 1990s, both to complete its own range of products and to break the dominance that Boeing had enjoyed in this market segment since the early 1970s with its 747. McDonnell Douglas pursued a similar strategy with its ultimately unsuccessful MD-12 design. As each manufacturer looked to build a successor to the 747, they knew there was room for only one new aircraft to be profitable in the 600 to 800 seat market segment. Each knew the risk of splitting such a niche market, as had been demonstrated by the simultaneous debut of the Lockheed L-1011 and the McDonnell Douglas DC-10: either aircraft met the market’s needs, but the market could profitably sustain only one model, eventually resulting in Lockheed’s departure from the civil airliner business. In January 1993, Boeing and several companies in the Airbus consortium started a joint feasibility study of an aircraft known as the Very Large Commercial Transport (VLCT), aiming to form a partnership to share the limited market.
The first completed A380 at the “A380 Reveal” event in Toulouse.In June 1994, Airbus began developing its own very large airliner, designated the A3XX. Airbus considered several designs, including an odd side-by-side combination of two fuselages from the A340, which was Airbus’s largest jet at the time.[7] The A3XX was pitted against the VLCT study and Boeing’s own New Large Aircraft successor to the 747, which evolved into the 747X, a stretched version of the 747 with the fore body “hump” extended rearwards to accommodate more passengers. The joint VLCT effort ended in July 1996, and Boeing suspended the 747X program in January 1997. From 1997 to 2000, as the East Asian financial crisis darkened the market outlook, Airbus refined its design, targeting a 15 to 20 percent reduction in operating costs over the existing Boeing 747-400. The A3XX design converged on a double-decker layout that provided more passenger volume than a traditional single-deck design.

On 19 December 2000, the supervisory board of newly restructured Airbus voted to launch a €8.8 billion program to build the A3XX, re-christened as the A380, with 55 orders from six launch customers. The A380 designation was a break from previous Airbus designations, which had progressed sequentially from A300 to A340 (excepting A318, A319, and A321, three variants of the A320). The aircraft’s final configuration was frozen in early 2001, and manufacturing of the first A380 wing box component started on 23 January 2002. The development cost of the A380 had grown to €11 billion when the first aircraft was completed.

Boeing, meanwhile, resurrected the 747X programme several times before finally launching the 747-8 Intercontinental in November 2005 (with entry into service planned for 2009). Boeing chose to develop a derivative for the 400 to 500 seat market, instead of matching the A380’s capacity.
Testing
 
A380 about to land for the first time.Five A380s were built for testing and demonstration purposes.[8] The first prototype, serial number 001 and registration F-WWOW, was unveiled at a ceremony in Toulouse on 18 January 2005. Its maiden flight took place at 8:29 UTC (10:29 a.m. local time) 27 April 2005. The prototype, equipped with Trent 900 engines, departed runway 32L of Toulouse Blagnac International Airport with a flight crew of six headed by chief test pilot Jacques Rosay, carrying 20 tonnes (22 short tons) of flight test instrumentation and water ballast. The take-off weight of the aircraft was 421 tonnes (464 short tons); although this was only 75 percent of its maximum take-off weight, it was the heaviest take-off weight of any passenger airliner ever flown.
A380 F-WWDD in Emirates Airline livery at the 2005 Dubai Airshow.In mid-November 2005, the A380 embarked on a tour of Southeast Asia and Australia for promotional and for long-haul flight testing purposes, visiting Singapore, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Kuala Lumpur. During this tour, the livery of Singapore Airlines, Qantas and Malaysia Airlines were applied in addition to the Airbus house livery. On 19 November, an A380 flew in full Emirates livery at the Dubai Air Show.

On 1 December 2005, the A380 achieved its maximum design speed of Mach 0.96, in a shallow dive, completing the opening of the flight envelope.[8] The aircraft’s maximum allowed operational speed is lower, at Mach 0.89, and its cruising speed is Mach 0.85.

On 10 January 2006, the A380 made its first transatlantic flight to Medellín in Colombia, to test engine performance at a high altitude airport. It arrived in North America on 6 February, when an A380 landed in Iqaluit, Nunavut in Canada for cold-weather testing.[9] The same aircraft then flew to Singapore to participate in the Asian Aerospace 2006 exhibition, in full Singapore Airlines livery.
Flight test engineer’s station on the lower deck of A380 F-WWOW at the 2006 Farnborough International Airshow.On 26 March 2006, the A380 underwent evacuation certification in Hamburg in Germany. With 8 of the 16 exits blocked, 853 passengers and 20 crew left the aircraft in 78 seconds, less than the 90 seconds required by certification standards.[10] Three days later, the A380 received European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval to carry up to 853 passengers.[11]

The first A380 planned for delivery to a customer, serial number 003 and registration F-WWSA, took to the air in May 2006. The maiden flight of the first A380 with GP7200 engines (F-WWEA) took place on 25 August 2006.

On 4 September 2006, the first full passenger-carrying flight test took place.[12] The aircraft flew from Toulouse with 474 Airbus employees on board, in the first of a series of flights to test passenger facilities and comfort. In November 2006, a further series of route proving flights took place to demonstrate the aircraft’s performance for 150 flight hours under typical airline operating conditions.

Airbus obtained the A380 type certificate from the EASA and FAA on 12 December 2006 in a joint ceremony at the company’s French headquarters.[13]

As of October 2007, ten A380s had flown, and the five A380s in the test programme had logged over 4,565 hours during 1,364 flights, including route proving and demonstration flights around the world.
Delivery delays
Initial production of the A380 was plagued by delays attributed to the 530 km (330 miles) of wiring in each aircraft. Airbus cited as underlying causes the complexity of the cabin wiring (100,000 wires and 40,300 connectors), its concurrent design and production, the use of two incompatible versions of the CATIA computer-aided design software, the high degree of customisation for each airline, and failures of configuration management and change control.[14][15] Deliveries would be pushed back by nearly two years.

While Airbus attributes the delays entirely to wiring, industry analyst Richard Aboulafia, noting that the first A380 will be around 5.5 tons heavier than intended, speculates that the weight problems “[go] a long way in explaining the delay”, and that “wiring alone did not explain what we were all hearing. It sounds like weight-reduction design changes are a big part of the delay, too.”[16]

Airbus announced the first delay in June 2005 and notified airlines that delivery would slip by six months, with Singapore Airlines expecting the first A380 in the last quarter of 2006, Qantas getting its first delivery in April 2007 and Emirates receiving aircraft before 2008. This reduced the number of planned deliveries by the end of 2009 from about 120 to 90–100.

On 13 June 2006, Airbus announced a second delay, with the delivery schedule undergoing an additional shift of six to seven months. Although the first delivery was still planned before the end of 2006, deliveries in 2007 would drop to only 9 aircraft, and deliveries by the end of 2009 would be cut to 70–80 aircraft. The announcement caused a 26% drop in the share price of Airbus’s parent, EADS, and led to the departure of EADS CEO Noël Forgeard, Airbus CEO Gustav Humbert, and A380 programme manager Charles Champion.[17] In the wake of the new delay, Malaysia Airlines and ILFC were reported to be considering the cancellation of their orders.[18][19] Launch customers Singapore Airlines, Emirates and Qantas also were reported to be angered by the delays and expecting compensation.[20] However, on 21 July 2006, Singapore Airlines ordered a further 9 A380s and stated that Airbus had “demonstrated to our satisfaction that the engineering design for the A380 is sound [and that] it has performed well in flight and certification tests and the delays in its delivery have been caused more by production, rather than technical, issues.”[21]
A380 with Malaysia Airlines titles.On 3 October 2006, upon completion of a review of the A380 program, the then CEO of Airbus, Christian Streiff, announced a third delay.[22] The largest delay yet, it pushed the first delivery for Singapore Airlines to October 2007, to be followed by 13 deliveries in 2008, 25 in 2009, and the full production rate of 45 aircraft per year in 2010. The delay also increased the earnings shortfall projected by Airbus through 2010 to €4.8 billion.[23] The customer with the largest A380 order, Emirates, saw its first delivery pushed back to August 2008 and said as a result that it was considering scaling back its order,[24] potentially in favour of the rival Boeing 747-8.[23] However, Emirates never scaled back the order but placed additional orders for A380s in 2007. Virgin Atlantic deferred its deliveries by four years, to 2013.[25] The third delay was followed by the first cancellations to hit the A380 programme. On 7 November 2006 FedEx cancelled its order for 10 A380F freighters in favour of 15 Boeing 777 Freighters.[26] In March 2007, the last remaining customer for the A380F, UPS, announced the cancellation of its order.[27] Airbus suspended work on the freighter version in order to concentrate on delivering the passenger version, but said the freighter remained on offer.[28] As of March 2007, Airbus estimated a 2014 entry into service for the A380F.[29]
Entry into service
 
An Airbus A380 in the livery of Singapore Airlines at the Asian Aerospace 2006 in Singapore. The airline will be the first to fly the world’s largest airliner.Singapore Airlines and Airbus have formally announced that the first aircraft, MSN003, was finally handed over on 15 October 2007, following a lengthy acceptance test phase, and will enter service on 25 October 2007 with a flight between Singapore and Sydney (flight number SQ380).[30][31] The airline plans to use its first several aircraft, in a 471-seat configuration, on its London–Singapore–Sydney (the kangaroo route) service. Subsequent routes for Singapore Airlines may include the Singapore–San Francisco route via Hong Kong, as well as direct flights to Paris and Frankfurt. Qantas (second to fly A380) has announced it will use the A380, in a 450-seat configuration [1], on its Melbourne and Sydney to Los Angeles and Melbourne and Sydney to London routes. The aircraft (MSN014) is approaching final wiring installation and will be shipped to Hamburg for cabin fitting out by the end of the year[32]. Air France’s aircraft will be used on the Paris to Montreal and New York routes. The first Engine Alliance powered A380 which is due to enter service with Emirates (MSN 011), had its maiden flight on 4 September 2007[33]. Emirates will receive the aircraft in September 2008 and will initially deploy the plane on its Australian services to Sydney and shortly after to Melbourne. As of October 2007 Airbus has assembled 23 A380s, and the first A380 to be equipped with the new electrical system (which replaces the root cause of the massive programme delays) MSN026 should be ready for ‘power-on’ in early 2008.

Design
 
A380 cabin cross section, showing economy class seatingThe new Airbus is sold in two models. The A380-800 was originally designed to carry 555 passengers in a three-class configuration[35] or 853 passengers (538 on the main deck and 315 on the upper deck) in a single-class economy configuration. In May 2007, Airbus began marketing the same aircraft to customers with 30 fewer passengers (now 525 passengers) traded for 200 nmi more range, to better reflect trends in premium class accommodation.[5] The design range for the -800 model is 15,200 km (8,200 nmi).[4] The second model, the A380-800F freighter, will carry 150 tonnes of cargo 10,400 km (5,600 nmi).[36] Future variants may include an A380-900 stretch seating about 656 passengers (or up to 960 passengers in an all economy configuration) and an extended range version with the same passenger capacity as the A380-800.[7]

The A380’s wing is sized for a Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) over 650 tonnes in order to accommodate these future versions, albeit with some strengthening required.[7] The stronger wing (and structure) is used on the A380-800F freighter. This common design approach sacrifices some fuel efficiency on the A380-800 passenger model, but Airbus estimates that the size of the aircraft, coupled with the advances in technology described below, will provide lower operating costs per passenger than all current variants of Boeing 747. The A380 also features wingtip fences similar to those found on the A310 and A320 to improve performance.
Flight deck
 
The plane’s flight deckAirbus used similar cockpit layout, procedures and handling characteristics to those of other Airbus aircraft, to reduce crew training costs. Accordingly, the A380 features an improved glass cockpit, and fly-by-wire flight controls linked to side-sticks.[37] The improved cockpit displays feature eight 15-by-20 cm (6-by-8-inch) liquid crystal displays, all of which are physically identical and interchangeable. These comprise two Primary Flight Displays, two navigation displays, one engine parameter display, one system display and two Multi-Function Displays. These MFDs are new with the A380, and provide an easy-to-use interface to the flight management system—replacing three multifunction control and display units. They include QWERTY keyboards and trackballs, interfacing with a graphical “point-and-click” display navigation system.[38]
Engines
 
A Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on the wing of an Airbus A380Either the Rolls-Royce Trent 900 or Engine Alliance GP7000 turbofans may power the A380. Both are derived from the predecessors Trent 800, GE90 and PW4000. The Trent 900 core is a scaled version of the Trent 500, but incorporates the swept fan technology of the stillborn Trent 8104.[39] The GP7200 has a GE90-derived core and PW4090-derived fan and low-pressure turbo-machinery.[40] Noise reduction was a driving requirement for the A380, and particularly affects engine design.[41] Both engine types are expected to allow the aircraft to meet the stringent QC/2 departure noise limits set by London Heathrow Airport, which is expected to become a key destination for the A380.[7]

Further information: Comparison between Rolls-Royce Trent 900 and Engine Alliance GP7000

Advanced materials
Composite materials make up 25% of the A380’s airframe, by weight. Carbon-fibre reinforced plastic, glass-fibre reinforced plastic and quartz-fibre reinforced plastic are used extensively in wings, fuselage sections, tail surfaces, and doors. The A380 is the first commercial airliner with a central wing box made of carbon fibre reinforced plastic, and it is the first to have a wing cross-section that is smoothly contoured. Other commercial airliners have wings that are partitioned span-wise in sections. The flowing, continuous cross-section allows for maximum aerodynamic efficiency. Thermoplastics are used in the leading edges of the slats. The new material GLARE (GLAss-REinforced fibre metal laminate) is used in the upper fuselage and on the stabilizers’ leading edges. This aluminium-glass-fibre laminate is lighter and has better corrosion and impact resistance than conventional aluminium alloys used in aviation. Unlike earlier composite materials, it can be repaired using conventional aluminium repair techniques.[42] Newer weldable aluminium alloys are also used. This enables the widespread use of laser beam welding manufacturing techniques[43] — eliminating rows of rivets and resulting in a lighter, stronger structure.
Avionics architecture
The A380 employs an Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) architecture, first used in advanced military aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor and the Eurofighter Typhoon. It is based on a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) design. Many previous dedicated single-purpose avionics computers are replaced by dedicated software housed in onboard processor modules and servers. This cuts the number of parts, provides increased flexibility without resorting to customised avionics, and reduces costs by using commercially available computing power.[38] Together with IMA, the A380 avionics are very highly networked. The data communication networks use Avionics Full-Duplex Switched Ethernet, following the ARINC 664 standard. The data networks are switched, full-duplexed, star-topology and based on 100baseTX fast-Ethernet.[44] This reduces the amount of wiring required and minimizes latency. [45] The Network Systems Server (NSS) is the heart of A380 paperless cockpit. It eliminates the bulky manuals and charts traditionally carried by the pilots. The NSS has enough inbuilt robustness to do away with onboard backup paper documents. The A380’s network and server system stores data and offers electronic documentation, providing a required equipment list, navigation charts, performance calculations, and an aircraft logbook. All are accessible to the pilot from two additional 27 cm (11 inch) diagonal LCDs, each controlled by its own keyboard and control cursor device mounted in the foldable table in front of each pilot.[45]
Systems
 
The second A380 prototype (cn 004) overflies Filton Airfield, Bristol, England.Power-by-wire flight control actuators are used for the first time in civil service, backing up the primary hydraulic flight control actuators. During certain manoeuvres, they augment the primary actuators. They have self-contained hydraulic and electrical power supplies. They are used as electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHA) in the aileron and elevator, and as electrical backup hydrostatic actuators (EBHA) for the rudder and some spoilers.[46]

The aircraft’s 350 bar (35 MPa or 5,000 psi) hydraulic system is an improvement over the typical 210 bar (21 MPa or 3,000 psi) system found in other commercial aircraft since the 1940s. First used in military aircraft, higher pressure hydraulics reduce the size of pipelines, actuators and other components for overall weight reduction. The 350 bar pressure is generated by eight de-clutchable hydraulic pumps. Pipelines are typically made from titanium and the system features both fuel and air-cooled heat exchangers. The hydraulics system architecture also differs significantly from other airliners. Self-contained electrically powered hydraulic power packs, instead of a secondary hydraulic system, are the backups for the primary systems. This saves weight and reduces maintenance.

The A380 uses four 150 kVA variable-frequency electrical generators eliminating the constant speed drives for better reliability. The A380 uses aluminium power cables instead of copper for greater weight savings due to the number of cables used for an aircraft of this size and complexity. The electrical power system is fully computerized and many contactors and breakers have been replaced by solid-state devices for better performance and increased reliability.[46]
A380-800 layout with 550 seatsThe A380 features a bulbless illumination system. LEDs are employed in the cabin, cockpit, cargo and other fuselage areas. The cabin lighting features programmable multi-spectral LEDs[47] capable of creating a cabin ambience simulating daylight, night or shades in between. On the outside of the aircraft, HID lighting is used to give brighter, whiter and better quality illumination. These two technologies provide brightness and a service life superior to traditional incandescent light bulbs.

The A380 was initially planned without thrust reversers, as Airbus believed it to have ample braking capacity. The FAA disagreed, and Airbus elected to fit only the two inboard engines with them. The two outboard engines do not have reversers, reducing the amount of debris blown up during landing. The A380 features electrically actuated thrust reversers, giving them better reliability than their pneumatic or hydraulic equivalents, in addition to saving weight.
Passenger provisions
Initial publicity stressed the comfort and space of the A380’s cabin,[48] which offers room for such installations as relaxation areas, bars, duty-free shops, and beauty salons. One A380 customer likely to use innovative amenities is Virgin Atlantic Airways, which has a bar in Business Class on its aircraft, and has announced plans to include casinos, double beds, a gymnasium and showers on its A380s.[49][50] The A380 will provide more and wider seats, lower seat-distance costs and better amenities. It also gives 50% lower cabin noise than a 747 and a lower cabin altitude of 5000 ft; both features are expected to reduce the effects of travel fatigue.

At 555 passengers, the A380’s seating capacity represents a 33% increase over the 747-400 in a standard three-class configuration, along with a 50% larger cabin area and volume — producing more space per passenger. If, however, the plane is ordered in an all-economy-class configuration, it can hold up to 853 passengers; its maximum certified carrying capacity.[10]
Airport compatibility
The A380 was designed to fit within an 80 × 80 m airport gate,[51] and can land or take off on any runway that can accommodate a Boeing 747. However, airports used by the A380 in commercial service may need infrastructure modifications.[52] Its large wingspan can require some taxiway and apron reconfigurations, to maintain safe separation margins when two of the aircraft pass each other. Taxiway shoulders may be required to be paved to reduce the likelihood of foreign object damage caused to (or by) the outboard engines, which overhang more than 25 m (80 ft) from the centre line of the aircraft. Any taxiway or runway bridge must be capable of supporting the A380’s maximum weight. The terminal gate must be sized such that the A380’s wings do not block adjacent gates, and may also provide multiple jetway bridges for simultaneous boarding on both decks.[53]
A380 connected by two separate jetways for each floor to Frankfurt Airport.Service vehicles with lifts capable of reaching the upper deck should be obtained,[54] as well as tractors capable of handling the A380’s maximum ramp weight.[55] The A380 test aircraft have participated in a campaign of airport compatibility testing to verify the modifications already made at several large airports, visiting a number of airports around the world.[56][57] The A380 has now also been approved for use on regular width runways (45m) by both the EASA and FAA.[58]

Production
Major structural sections of the A380 are built in France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Due to their size, they are brought to the assembly hall in Toulouse in France by surface transportation, rather than by the A300-600ST Beluga aircraft used for other Airbus models. Components of the A380 are provided by suppliers from around the world; the five largest contributors, by value, are Rolls-Royce, SAFRAN, United Technologies, General Electric, and Goodrich.[59]
The A380 transporter ship Ville de BordeauxThe front and rear sections of the fuselage are loaded on an Airbus Roll-on/roll-off (RORO) ship, Ville de Bordeaux, in Hamburg in northern Germany, whence they are shipped to the United Kingdom.[60] The wings, which are manufactured at Filton in Bristol and Broughton in North Wales, are transported by barge to Mostyn docks, where the ship adds them to its cargo. In Saint-Nazaire in western France, the ship trades the fuselage sections from Hamburg for larger, assembled sections, some of which include the nose. The ship unloads in Bordeaux. Afterwards, the ship picks up the belly and tail sections by Construcciones Aeronáuticas SA in Cádiz in southern Spain, and delivers them to Bordeaux. From there, the A380 parts are transported by barge to Langon, and by oversize road convoys to the assembly hall in Toulouse. New wider roads, canal systems and barges were developed to deliver the A380 parts. After assembly, the aircraft are flown to Hamburg to be furnished and painted. It takes 3,600 litres (950 gallons) of paint to cover the 3,100 m² (33,000 ft²) exterior of an A380.

Airbus sized the production facilities and supply chain for a production rate of four A380s per month.[60]
Orders
Main article: List of Airbus A380 orders
A380-800 orders, by year
 
Seventeen airlines have ordered the A380, including an order from aircraft lessor ILFC. Total orders for the A380 stand at 190, of which 165 were firm as of 30 September 2007.[61] Orders for the freighter model reached 27 but dwindled to zero following the production delays. Airbus expects to sell a total of 750 aircraft, and estimated break-even at 420 units, increased from 270 due to the delays and the falling exchange rate of the US dollar.[14] In April 2007, Airbus CEO Louis Gallois said that break-even had risen further, but declined to give the new figure. Industry analysts anticipate between 400 and 880 sales by 2025.[59] As of 2006, the list price of an A380 is US$ 296 to 316 million, depending on equipment installed.[62]

Industry sources have also cited that the USAF Air Mobility Command is looking into the possibilty of purchasing the A380 as a replacement for the ageing Boeing 747s in the role of presidential transport. USAF may also be interested in a military version of the A380F as a tactical transport aircraft. This would be a replacement for the current C-5 Galaxy aircraft.[63]
Deliveries
2007 2008 2009 2010
1 (13) (25) (44)

Anticipated deliveries are in parentheses.

In a ceremony on 15 October 2007 held at the Airbus Delivery Centre Toulouse, France the first Airbus A380 was handed over to Chew Choon Seng, CEO of Singapore Airlines.[64] The new Singapore Airlines’ class “The class beyond first” was also unveiled publicly for the first time on the A380. The first commercial flight “SQ380″ will take place on the 25 October 2007 when the aircraft will leave Singapore for Sydney.[65] The first landing of an commercial A380 was at Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3, Singapore time 1840hrs (GMT+0800).[66]
Technical concerns
Several concerns about the A380 have arisen during its development. Airbus has addressed these concerns as required to obtain a type certificate from the European Aviation Safety Agency and its American counterpart, the Federal Aviation Administration.
Ground operations
Early critics claimed that the A380 would damage taxiways and other airport surfaces. However, the pressure exerted by its wheels is lower than that of a Boeing 747 or Boeing 777 because the A380 has 22 wheels, four more than the 747, and eight more than the 777.[67] Airbus measured pavement loads using a 540-tonne (595 short tons) ballasted test rig, designed to replicate the landing gear of the A380. The rig was towed over a section of pavement at Airbus’ facilities that had been instrumented with embedded load sensors.
The A380’s 20-wheel main landing gearBased on its wingspan, the U.S. FAA classifies the A380 as a Design Group VI aircraft, and originally required a width of 60 m (200 ft) for runways and 30 m (100 ft) for taxiways, compared with 45 m (150 ft) and 23 m (75 ft) for Design Group V aircraft such as the Boeing 747. The FAA also considered limiting the taxi speed of the A380 to 25 km/h (15 mph) when operating on Group V infrastructure, but issued waivers related to the speed restriction and some of the proposed runway widening requirements.[70][71] Airbus claimed from the beginning that the A380 could safely operate on Group V runways and taxiways, without the need for widening. In July 2007, the FAA and EASA agreed to let the A380 operate on 45 m runways without restrictions.The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is still disputing this issue.[citation needed]

As of late 2005, there were concerns that the jet blast from the A380’s engines could be dangerous to ground vehicles and airport terminal buildings, as more thrust is required to move its greater mass (560 t compared with 413 t for a 747). The FAA has established a commission to determine if new safety regulations seem necessary, and was to make appropriate recommendations to the ICAO. According to Wall Street Journal, “The debate is supposed to be entirely about safety, but industry officials and even some participants acknowledge that, at the very least, an overlay of diplomatic and trade tensions complicates matters.” The FAA commission has stated it would not enact unilateral safeguards for the A380, only those imposed by the ICAO.
Wake turbulence
The A380 generates more wake turbulence on takeoff and landing than existing aircraft types, requiring increased airport approach and departure spacing for following aircraft.

In 2005, the ICAO recommended that provisional separation criteria for the A380 be substantially greater than for the 747 because preliminary flight test data suggested a stronger wake than the 747.[74] These criteria were in effect while the A380 Wake Vortex Steering Group, with representatives from the JAA, Eurocontrol, the FAA, and Airbus, refined its 3-year study of the issue with additional flight testing. In September 2006, the working group presented its conclusions to the ICAO, which rendered final guidance on the issue in November 2006. The working group concluded that an aircraft trailing an A380 during approach needs to maintain a separation of 6 nmi, 8 nmi and 10 nmi respectively for ICAO “Heavy”, “Medium”, and “Light” aircraft categories, instead of the traditional 4 nmi, 5 nmi and 6 nmi spacing. However, the working group found no need to limit the A380’s trailing distance behind another aircraft, potentially making up for some of the increased spacing behind the A380.[73] On departure behind an A380, the working group concluded that “Heavy” aircraft are required to wait two minutes, and “Medium”/”Light” aircraft three minutes for time based operations. Finally, the working group did not recommend any modified restrictions on vertical or horizontal separation criteria during cruise.

During the A380’s maiden trip to the United States in 2007, air traffic control used the callsign suffix “Super” to distinguish the A380 from “Heavy” aircraft.
Wing strength
During the destructive wing strength certification test, the test wing of the A380 failed to meet the certification requirement of 150% of limit load.[76] Limit load is the maximum load expected during operation in the design life of an aircraft. The test wing buckled between the inboard and outboard engines at 147% of limit load, as the wing tip reached a vertical deflection of 7.4 m (24.3 ft). Airbus initially stated that the test article represented an early design, and that the load requirement would be verified by analysis of changes already made. Subsequently, Airbus announced that modifications adding 30 kg to the wing would be made to provide the required strength.

The International Space Station (ISS) is a research facility currently being assembled in space. The station is in a low Earth orbit and can be seen from Earth with the naked eye: its altitude varies from 319.6 km to 346.9 km above the surface of the Earth (approximately 199 miles to 215 miles). It travels at an average speed of 27,744 km (17,240 miles) per hour, completing 15.7 orbits per day. The ISS is a joint project between the space agencies of the United States (NASA), Russia (RKA), Japan (JAXA), Canada (CSA) and several European countries (ESA).[4]

The Brazilian Space Agency (AEB, Brazil) participates through a separate contract with NASA. The Italian Space Agency similarly has separate contracts for various activities not done in the framework of ESA’s ISS works (where Italy also fully participates). China has reportedly expressed interest in the project, especially if it is able to work with the RKA.[5] The Chinese are not currently involved, however.

The ISS is a continuation of what began as the U.S. Space Station Freedom, the funding for which was cut back severely. It represents a merger of Freedom with several other previously planned space stations: Russia’s Mir 2, the planned European Columbus and Kibo, the Japanese Experiment Module. The projected completion date is 2010, with the station remaining in operation until around 2016. As of 2007, the ISS is already larger than any previous space station.

The ISS has been continuously inhabited since the first resident crew entered the station on November 2, 2000, thereby providing a permanent human presence in space. The crew of Expedition 15 are currently aboard. The station is serviced primarily by Russian Soyuz and Progress spacecraft and by U.S. Space Shuttle orbiters. At present the station has a capacity for a crew of three. Early crewmembers all came from the Russian and U.S. space programs. German ESA astronaut Thomas Reiter joined the Expedition 13 crew in July 2006, becoming the first crewmember from another space agency. The station has, however, been visited by astronauts from 14 countries. The ISS was also the destination of the first five space tourists.

Origins
 
ISS configuration in 2000: from top to bottom, the Unity, Zarya, and Zvezda modules.In the early 1980’s, NASA planned Space Station Freedom as a counterpart to the Soviet Salyut and Mir space stations. It never left the drawing board and, with the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, it was cancelled. The end of the Space race prompted the U.S. administration officials to start negotiations with international partners Europe, Russia, Japan and Canada in the early 1990s in order to build a truly international space station. This project was first announced in 1993 and was called Space Station Alpha.[6] It was planned to combine the proposed space stations of all participating space agencies: NASA’s Space Station Freedom, Russia’s Mir-2 (the successor to the Mir Space Station, the core of which is now Zvezda) and ESA’s Columbus that was planned to be a stand-alone spacelab.

The first section, the Zarya Functional Cargo Block, was put in orbit in November 1998 on a Russian Proton rocket. Two further pieces (the Unity Module and Zvezda service module) were added before the first crew, Expedition 1, was sent. Expedition 1 docked to the ISS on November 2, 2000, and consisted of U.S. astronaut William Shepherd and two Russian cosmonauts, Yuri Gidzenko and Sergei Krikalev.
Assembly
 
International Space Station mockup at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.Main article: Assembly of the International Space Station
See also: ISS assembly sequence
The assembly of the International Space Station is a major aerospace engineering endeavor. When assembly is complete the ISS will have a pressurized volume of approximately 1,000 cubic meters. Assembly began in November 1998 with the launch of Zarya — the first ISS module — on a Proton rocket, and as of 2007 assembly is on-going.
Major ISS Systems

Power supply
Main article: Electrical system of the International Space Station
 
The ISS in 2001 showing solar panels.The source of electrical power for the ISS is the sun: light is converted into electricity through the use of solar panels. Before assembly flight 4A (shuttle mission STS-97, November 30, 2000) the only power source was the Russian solar panels attached to the Zarya and Zvezda modules: the Russian segment of the station uses 28 volts dc (like the Shuttle). In the rest of the station, electricity is provided by the solar cells attached to the truss at a voltage ranging from 130 to 180 volts dc. The power is then stabilized and distributed at 160 volts dc and then converted to the user-required 124 volts dc. Power can be shared between the two segments of the station using converters, and this feature is essential since the cancellation of the Russian Science Power Platform: the Russian segment will depend on the U.S. built solar arrays for power supply.[7]

Using a high-voltage (130 to 160 volts) distribution line in the so-called U.S. part of the station led to smaller power lines and thus weight savings.
Life support
 
Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS).The ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System provides or controls elements such as atmospheric pressure, oxygen levels, water, and fire extinguishing, among other things. The Elektron system generates oxygen aboard the station. The highest priority for the life support system is the ISS atmosphere, but the system also collects, processes, and stores waste and water produced and used by the crew. For example, the system recycles fluid from the sink, shower, urine, and condensation. Activated charcoal filters are the primary method for removing byproducts of human metabolism from the air. [8]
Attitude control
The attitude (orientation) of the station is maintained by either of two mechanisms. Normally, a system using several control moment gyroscopes (CMGs) keeps the station oriented, i.e. with Destiny forward of Unity, the P truss on the port side and Pirs on the earth-facing (nadir) side. When the CMG system becomes saturated, it can lose its ability to control station attitude. If this happens, the Russian Attitude Control System can take over, using thrusters to maintain station attitude and allowing the CMG system to desaturate. This has happened automatically as a safety measure, as happened for example during Expedition 10.[9] When a shuttle orbiter is docked to the station, it can also be used to maintain station attitude. This procedure was used during STS-117 as the S3/S4 truss was being installed.
Scientific research
One of the main goals of the ISS is to provide a place to conduct experiments that require one or more of the unusual conditions present on the station. The main fields of research include biology (including biomedical research and biotechnology), physics (including fluid physics, materials science, and quantum physics), astronomy (including cosmology), and meteorology.[10] [11] The 2005 NASA Authorization Act designated the U.S segment of the International Space Station as a national laboratory with a goal to increase the utilization of the ISS by other Federal entities and the private sector. As of 2007, little experimentation other than the study of the long-term effects of microgravity on humans has taken place. With four new research modules set to arrive at the ISS by 2010, however, more specialized research is expected to begin.
Columbus will be one of the most prominent research laboratories when it is completed.
Scientific ISS modules
The Destiny Laboratory Module is the main research facility currently aboard the ISS. Produced by NASA and launched in February 2001, it is a research facility for general experiments.[12] The Columbus module is another research facility, though it was designed by the ESA for the ISS. Its purpose is to facilitate scientific experiments and is set to be launched into space with the STS-122 shuttle launch on December 6, 2007.[13] It should provide a generic laboratory as well as ones specifically designed for biology, biomedical research, and fluid physics. There are also a number of planned expansions that will be implemented to study quantum physics and cosmology. The Japanese Experiment Module, also known as Kib?, is scheduled to be in space after the STS-127 launch in or around January, 2009. It is being developed by JAXA in order to function as an observatory and to measure various astronomical data. The ExPRESS Logistics Carrier, developed by NASA, is set to be launched for the ISS with the STS-129 mission, which is expected to take place no earlier than September 11, 2009.[14] It will allow experiments to be deployed and conducted in the vacuum of space and will provide the necessary electricity and computing to locally process data from experiments. The Multipurpose Laboratory Module, created by the RKA, is expected to launch for the ISS in late 2009. It will supply the proper resources for general microgravity experiments.[15]

A couple of planned research modules have been cancelled, including the Centrifuge Accommodations Module (used to produce varying levels of artificial gravity) and the Russian Research Module (used for general experimentation). Several planned experiments, such as the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, have been cancelled as well.
Areas of research
There are a number of plans to study biology on the ISS. One goal is to improve our understanding of the effect of long-term space exposure on the human body. Subjects such as muscle atrophy, bone loss, and fluid shifts are studied with the intention to utilize this data so space colonization and lengthy space travel can become feasible. The effect of near-weightlessness on evolution, development and growth, and the internal processes of plants and animals are also studied. In response to recent data suggesting that microgravity enables the growth of three-dimensional human body-like tissues and that unusual protein crystals can be formed in space, NASA has indicated a desire to investigate these phenomena.[10]

NASA would also like to study prominent problems in physics. The physics of fluids in microgravity are not completely understood, and researchers would like to be able to accurately model fluids in the future. Additionally, since fluids in space can be combined nearly completely regardless of their relative weights, there is some interest in investigating the combination of fluids that would not mix well on Earth. By examining reactions that are slowed down by low gravity and temperatures, scientists also hope to gain new insight concerning states of matter (specifically in regards to superconductivity).[10]

Additionally, researchers hope to examine combustion in the presence of less gravity than on Earth. Any findings involving the efficiency of the burning or the creation of byproducts could improve the process of energy production, which would be of economic and environmental interest. Scientists plan to use the ISS to examine aerosols, ozone, water vapor, and oxides in Earth’s atmosphere as well as cosmic rays, cosmic dust, anti-matter, and dark matter in the Universe.[10]

The long-term goals of this research are to develop the technology necessary for human-based space and planetary exploration and colonization (including life support systems, safety precautions, environmental monitoring in space, etc.), new ways to treat diseases, more efficient methods of producing materials, more accurate measurements that would be impossible to achieve on Earth, and a more complete understanding of the Universe.[10] [11]
Future of the ISS
NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin says the International Space Station has a role to play as NASA moves forward with a new focus for the manned space program, which is to go out beyond Earth orbit for purposes of human exploration and scientific discovery. “The International Space Station is now a stepping stone on the way,” says Griffin, “rather than being the end of the line.” He says ISS crews not only will continue to learn how to live and work in space but will learn how to build hardware that can survive and function for the years required to make the round-trip voyage from Earth to Mars.
Major incidents

2003 Columbia disaster
After the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster on February 1, 2003, and the later two and a half year suspension of the U.S. Space Shuttle program, followed by problems with resuming flight operations in 2005, there was some uncertainty over the future of the ISS until 2006. Between the Columbia disaster and the resumption of Shuttle launches, crew exchanges were carried out solely using the Russian Soyuz spacecraft. Starting with Expedition 7, two-astronaut caretaker crews were launched in contrast to the previously launched crews of three. Because the ISS had not been visited by a shuttle for an extended period, a larger than planned amount of waste accumulated, temporarily hindering station operations in 2004. However Progress transports and the STS-114 shuttle flight took care of this problem.
2006 Smoke problem
On September 18, 2006, the Expedition 13 crew activated a smoke alarm in the Russian segment of the International Space Station when fumes from one of the three oxygen generators triggered momentary fear about a possible fire. Flight engineer Jeffrey Williams reported an unusual smell, but officials said there was no fire and the crew was not in any danger.

The crew initially reported smoke in the cabin, as well as a smell. It was later found to be caused by a leak of potassium hydroxide from an oxygen vent. The equipment was turned off. Potassium hydroxide is odorless and the smell reported by Williams more likely was associated with an overheated rubber gasket in the Elektron system.

In any case, the station’s ventilation system was shut down to prevent the spread of smoke or contaminants through the rest of the lab complex. A charcoal air filter was put in place to help scrub the atmosphere of any lingering potassium hydroxide fumes. The space station’s program manager said the crew never donned gas masks, but as a precaution put on surgical gloves and masks to prevent contact with any contaminants.[16]

On November 2, 2006 the payload brought by the Russian Progress M-58 allowed the crew to repair the Elektron using spare parts.[17]
2007 Computer failure
On 14 June 2007 during Expedition 15 and on flight day 7 of STS-117’s visit to ISS, a computer malfunction on the Russian segments at 06:30 UTC left the station without thrusters, oxygen generation, carbon dioxide scrubber, and other environmental control systems, which caused temperatures to rise. A successful restart of the computers resulted in a false fire alarm which awakened the crew at 11:43 UTC.[18][19] The two computer systems (command and navigation) are each composed of three computers. Each computer is referred to as a Lane. [19]

By 15 June the primary Russian computers were back online and talking to the US side of the station by bypassing a circuit. Secondary systems were still offline and work would be needed.[20] Without the computer that controls the oxygen levels, the station had only 56 days of oxygen available.[21]

By the afternoon of 16 June, ISS’s program manager Michael Suffredini confirmed that all six computers governing command and navigation systems, including two thought to have failed, for Russian segments of the station were back online and would be tested within the next day or two. The cooling system was the first system brought back online. NASA believes the overcurrent protection circuits designed to safeguard each computer from power spikes were at fault and that the leading theory is that they were tripped due to increased interference, or “noise,” from the station’s plasma environment related to the addition of massive new starboard trusses and solar arrays.[19] Analysis of the failure continues for both the Station itself and by ESA for the Columbus Laboratory Module and the Automated Transfer Vehicle, which use the same computer systems that were supplied by EADS Astrium Space Transportation.[22] According to NASA’s Michael Suffredini, evidence suggests the plasma field shifted when the station’s shape changed with the addition of the new truss segment and that “As the station gets bigger, this potential will continue to grow” and that “the Russians have noted some changes in their systems as we have grown.”[22]
Visiting spacecraft
 
Automated Transfer Vehicle
Computer rendering of Rocketplane-Kistler K-1 approaching ISSAmerican (NASA) Space Shuttle - resupply vehicle, assembly and logistics flights and crew rotation (to be retired in 2010)
Russian (Roskosmos) Soyuz spacecraft - crew rotation and emergency evacuation, replaced every 6 months
Russian (Roskosmos) Progress spacecraft - resupply vehicle

Planned
European (ESA) Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) ISS resupply spacecraft (scheduled for January 2008)[23]
Japanese (JAXA) H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) resupply vehicle for Kibo module (scheduled for 2009)[24]
American (NASA) Orion for possible crew rotation and as resupply transporter (officially scheduled for 2014)

Proposed
SpaceX Dragon for NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (Scheduled for 2009)
Rocketplane Kistler K-1 Vehicle for NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (Scheduled for 2009)
Russian (Roskosmos) Space Shuttle Kliper for possible crew rotation and as resupply transporter (scheduled for 2012)
European-Russian Crew Space Transportation System (Soyuz-derived) crew rotation and resupply spacecraft (scheduled for 2014)

Expeditions
See also: List of International Space Station Expeditions
All permanent station crews are named “Expedition N”, where N is sequentially increased after each expedition. Expeditions (aka Increments) have an average duration of half a year.

The International Space Station is the most-visited spacecraft in the history of space flight. As of September 11, 2006, it has had 159 (non-distinct) visitors. Mir had 137 (non-distinct) visitors (See Space station). The number of distinct visitors of the ISS is 124 (see list of International Space Station visitors).

[show]v • d • eExpeditions to the International Space Station
Completed: Expedition 1 • Expedition 2 • Expedition 3 • Expedition 4 • Expedition 5 • Expedition 6 • Expedition 7 • Expedition 8 • Expedition 9 • Expedition 10 • Expedition 11 • Expedition 12 • Expedition 13 • Expedition 14

Current: Expedition 15
Planned: Expedition 16 • Expedition 17 • Expedition 18 • Expedition 19 
Legal aspects

Agreement
 
Cover page of the Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement signed on January 28, 1998.The legal structure that regulates the space station is multi-layered. The primary layer establishing obligations and rights between the ISS partners is the Space Station Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), an international treaty signed on January 28, 1998 by fifteen governments involved in the Space Station project. The ISS consists of the United States, Canada, Japan, the Russian Federation, and eleven Member States of the European Space Agency (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). Article 1 outlines its purpose:

This Agreement is a long term international co-operative framework on the basis of genuine partnership, for the detailed design, development, operation, and utilisation of a permanently inhabited civil Space Station for peaceful purposes, in accordance with international law.[25]

The IGA sets the stage for a second layer of agreements between the partners referred to as ‘Memoranda of Understanding’ (MOUs), of which four exist between NASA and each of the four other partners. There are no MOUs between ESA, Roskosmos, CSA and JAXA due to the fact that NASA is the designated manager of the ISS. The MOUs are used to describe the roles and responsibilities of the partners in more detail.

A third layer consists of bartered contractual agreements or the trading of the partners’ rights and duties, including the 2005 commercial framework agreement between NASA and Roskosmos that sets forth the terms and conditions under which NASA purchases seats on Soyuz crew transporters and cargo capacity on unmanned Progress transporters.

A fourth legal layer of agreements implements and supplements the four MOUs further. Notably among them is the ISS code of conduct, setting out criminal jurisdiction, anti-harassment and certain other behavior rules for ISS crewmembers.[26]
Utilization
 
The nadir window in the Destiny lab.
The Zarya module.There is no fixed percentage of ownership for the whole space station. Rather Article 5 of the IGA sets forth that each partner shall retain jurisdiction and control over the elements it registers and over personnel in or on the Space Station who are its nationals.[25] Therefore, for each ISS module only one partner retains sole ownership. Still, the agreements to use the space station facilities are more complex.

The three planned Russian segments Zvezda, the Multipurpose Laboratory Module and the Russian Research Modules are made and owned by Russia, which, as of today, also retains its current and prospective usage (Zarya, although constructed and launched by Russia, has been paid for and is officially owned by NASA). In order to use the Russian parts of the station, the partners use bilateral agreements (third and fourth layer of the above outlined legal structure). The rest of the station, (the U.S., the European and Japanese pressurized modules as well as the truss and solar panel structure and the two robotic arms) has been agreed to be utilized as follows (% refers to time that each structure may be used by each partner):

Columbus: 51% for ESA, 49% for NASA and CSA (CSA has agreed with NASA to use 2.3% of all non-Russian ISS structure)
Kibo: 51% for JAXA, 49% for NASA and CSA (2.3%)
Destiny Lab: 100% for NASA and CSA (2.3%) as well as 100% of the truss payload accommodation
Crew time and power from the solar panel structure, as well as rights to purchase supporting services (upload/download and communication services) 76.6% for NASA, 12.8% for JAXA, 8.3% for ESA and 2.3% for CSA

Costs
The ISS has been, as of today, far more expensive than originally anticipated. The ESA estimates the overall cost from the start of the project in the late 1980s to the prospective end in 2010 to be in the region of $130 billion (€100 billion).[27]

Giving a precise cost estimate for the ISS is, however, not straightforward; it is, for instance, hard to determine which costs should actually be contributed to the ISS program or how the Russian contribution should be measured, as the Russian space agency runs at considerably lower USD costs than the other partners.
NASA

Overview
 
NASA’s budget projections currently see an end to ISS funding in 2017 in order to free funds for the Vision for Space Exploration.The overall majority of costs for NASA are incurred by flight operations and expenses for the overall management of the ISS. Costs for initially building the U.S. portion of the ISS modules and external structure on the ground and construction in space as well as crew and supply flights to the ISS do account for far less than the general operating costs (see annual budget allocation below).

NASA does not include the basic Space Shuttle program costs in the expenses incurred for the ISS program, despite the fact that the Space Shuttle has been nearly exclusively used for ISS construction and supply flights since December 1998.

NASA’s 2007 budget request lists costs for the ISS (without Shuttle costs) as $25.6 billion for the years 1994 to 2005.[28] For each of 2005 and 2006 about $1.7 to 1.8 billion are allocated to the ISS program. The annual expenses will increase until 2010 when they will reach $2.3 billion and should then stay at the same level, however inflation-adjusted, until 2016, the defined end of the program. NASA has allocated between $300 and 500 million for program shutdown costs in 2017.
2005 ISS budget allocation
 
NASA allocates about 125 million US dollars annually to EVAs.The $1.8 billion expensed in 2005 consisted of:[29]

Development of new hardware: $70 million were allocated to core development, for instance development of systems like navigation, data support or environmental.
Spacecraft Operations: $800 million consisting of $125 million for each of software, extravehicular activity systems, and logistics and maintenance. An additional $150 million is spent on flight, avionics and crew systems. The rest of $250 million goes to overall ISS management.
Launch and Mission operations: Although the Shuttle launch costs are not considered part of the ISS budget, mission and mission integration ($300 million), medical support ($25 million) and Shuttle launch site processing ($125 million) is within the ISS budget.
Operations Program Integration: $350 million was spent on maintaining and sustaining U.S. flight and ground hardware and software to ensure integrity of the ISS design and the continuous, safe operability.
ISS cargo/crew: $140 million was spent for purchase of supplies, cargo and crew capability for Progress and Soyuz flights.

Shuttle costs as part of ISS costs
 
The only non-ISS related Shuttle flight between 2006 and 2010 will be a Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission in 2008.Only costs for mission and mission integration and launch site processing for the 33 ISS-related Shuttle flights are included in NASA’s ISS program costs. Basic costs of the Shuttle program are, as mentioned above, not considered part of the overall ISS costs by NASA, because the Shuttle program is considered an independent program aside from the ISS. Since December 1998 the Shuttle has, however, been used nearly exclusively for ISS flights (since the first ISS flight in December 1998, until December 2006 only 5 flights out of 25 flights have not been to the ISS, and only the planned Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission (see STS-125) in 2008 will not be ISS-related out of 14 planned missions until the end of the Space Shuttle program in 2010).

Shuttle program costs during ISS operations from 1999 to 2005 (disregarding the first ISS flight in December 1998) have amounted to approximately $24 billion (1999: $3,028.0 million, 2000: $3,011.2 million, 2001: $3,125.7 million, 2002: $3,278.8 million, 2003: $3,252.8 million, 2004: $3,945.0 million, 2005: $4,319.2 million). In order to derive the ISS-related costs, expenses for non-ISS flights need to be subtracted, which amount to 20% of the total or about $5 billion. For the years 2006-2011 NASA projects another $20.5 billion in Space Shuttle program costs (2006: $4,777.5 million, 2007: $4,056.7 million, 2008: $4,087.3 million, 2009: $3,794.8 million, 2010: $3,651.1 million and 2011: $146.7 million). If the Hubble servicing mission is excluded from those costs, ISS-related costs will be approximately $19 billion for Shuttle flights from 2006 until 2011. In total, ISS-related Space Shuttle program costs will therefore be approximately $38 billion.
Overall ISS costs for NASA
Assuming NASA’s projections of average costs of $2.5 billion from 2011 to 2016 and the end of spending money on the ISS in 2017 (about $300-500 million) after shutdown in 2016 are correct, the overall ISS project costs for NASA from the announcement of the program in 1993 to its end will be about $53 billion (25.6 billion for the years 1994-2005 and about 27 to 28 billion for the years 2006-2017).

There have also been considerable costs for designing Space Station Freedom in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the ISS program started in 1993. Plans of Space Station Freedom were reused for the International Space Station.

To sum up, although the actual costs NASA views as connected to the ISS are only half of the $100 billion figure often cited in the media, if combined with basic program costs for the Shuttle and the design of the ISS’ precursor project Space Station Freedom, the costs reach $100 billion for NASA alone.
ESA
ESA calculates that its contribution over the 30 year lifetime of the project will be €8 billion.[30] The costs for the Columbus Laboratory total more than €1 billion already, costs for ATV development total several hundred million and considering that each Ariane 5 launch costs around €150 million, each ATV launch will incur considerable costs as well. In addition ESA has constructed a ground control station in the South of Germany in order to control the Columbus Laboratory.
JAXA
The development of the Kibo Laboratory, JAXA’s main contribution to the ISS, has cost about 325 billion yen (about $2.8 billion)[31] In the year 2005, JAXA allocated about 40 billion yen (about 350 million USD) to the ISS program.[32] The annual running costs for Kibo will total around $350 to 400 million. In addition JAXA has committed itself to develop and launch the HTV-Transporter, for which development costs total nearly $1 billion. In total, over the 24 year lifespan of the ISS program, JAXA will contribute well over $10 billion to the ISS program.
Roskosmos
A considerable part of the Russian Space Agency’s budget is used for the ISS. Since 1998 there have been over two dozen Soyuz and Progress flights, the primary crew and cargo transporters since 2003. The question of how much Russia spends on the station (measured in USD), is, however, not easy to answer. The two modules currently in orbit are derivatives of the Mir program and therefore development costs are much lower than for other modules. In addition, the exchange rate between ruble and USD is not adequately giving a real comparison to what the costs for Russia really are.
CSA
Canada, whose main contribution to the ISS is the Canadarm2, estimates that through the last 20 years it has contributed about C$1.4 billion to the ISS.[33]
Criticism
“NASA must complete the ISS so it can be dropped into the ocean on schedule in finished form.”

—Robert L. Park, [1]
The ISS and NASA have been the targets of varied criticism over the years. Critics contend that the time and money spent on the ISS could be better spent on other projects — whether they be robotic spacecraft missions, space exploration, investigations of problems here on Earth, or just tax savings. [34][35] Some critics, like Bob Park, argue that very little scientific research was convincingly planned for the ISS in the first place.[36] They also argue that the primary feature of a space-based laboratory is its microgravity environment, which can usually be studied more cheaply with a vomit comet — that is, an aircraft which flies in parabolic arcs.[37]
The (cancelled) ISS Centrifuge Accommodations Module.Two of the most ambitious ISS projects to date—the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and the Centrifuge Accommodations Module—have both been cancelled due to the prohibitive costs NASA faces in simply completing the ISS. As a result, the research done on the ISS is generally limited to experiments which do not require any specialized apparatus. For example, in the first half of 2007, ISS research dealt primarily with human biological responses to being in space, covering topics like kidney stones,[2] circadian rhythm,[3] and the effects of cosmic rays on the nervous system.[4] Critics tend to believe that this sort of research is of little practical value, since space exploration is today almost universally done by robots.

Other critics have attacked the ISS on some technical design grounds:

Jeff Foust argued that the ISS requires too much maintenance, especially by risky, expensive EVAs;[38]
The Astronomical Society of the Pacific has mentioned that its orbit is rather highly inclined, which makes Russian launches cheaper, but US launches more expensive.[39] This was intended as a design point, to encourage Russian involvement with the ISS—and Russian involvement saved the project from abandonment in the wake of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster—but the choice may have increased the costs of completing the ISS substantially.
In response to some of these criticisms, advocates of manned space exploration say that criticism of the ISS project is short-sighted, and that manned space research and exploration have produced billions of dollars’ worth of tangible benefits to people on Earth. Jerome Schnee estimates that the indirect economic return from spin-offs of human space exploration has been many times the initial public investment.[40] However, this can be a rather contentious point: a review of the claims by the Federation of American Scientists argued that NASA’s rate of return from spinoffs is actually very low, except for aeronautics work that has led to aircraft sales.[41]

Critics also say that NASA is often casually credited with “spin-offs” (such as Velcro and portable computers) that were developed independently for other reasons.[42] NASA maintains a list of spin-offs from the construction of the ISS, as well as from work performed on the ISS.[43] However, NASA’s official list is much narrower and more arcane than dramatic narratives of billions of dollars of spin-offs.

It is therefore debatable whether the ISS, as distinct from the wider space program, will be a major contributor to society. Some advocates argue that apart from its scientific value, it is an important example of international cooperation.[44] Others claim that the ISS is an asset that, if properly leveraged, could allow more economical manned Lunar and Mars missions.[45] Either way, advocates argue that it misses the point to expect a hard financial return from the ISS; rather, it is intended as part of a general expansion of spaceflight capabilities.
Sightings
Due to the size of the International Space Station, and particularly the large reflective area offered by its solar panels, ground based observation of the station is possible with the naked eye; indeed, it is one of the brightest naked-eye objects in the sky on such occasions. Since the station is in low earth orbit, and the sun angle and observer locations also need to coincide, it is only visible for brief periods of time.

NASA provides data on forthcoming opportunities for viewing the ISS (and other objects) via their Sightings web page, and so does the European Space Agency [5].
Miscellaneous
 
Yuri Malenchenko was the first person to be married in space.
Space tourism and weddings
As of 2007 there have been five space tourists to the ISS, each spending around US$25 million; they all went there aboard Russian supply missions. There has also been a space wedding when cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko on the station married Ekaterina Dmitrieva, who was in Texas.

Golf Shot Around The World was an event in which, on an EVA, a special golf ball, equipped with a tracking device, was hit from the station and sent into its own low Earth orbit for a fee paid by a Canadian golf equipment manufacturer to the Russian Space Agency. The task was supposed to be performed on Expedition 13, but the event was postponed, and took place on Expedition 14.[46][47]
Microgravity
At the ISS altitude, the gravity from the Earth is still 88% of that at sea level. The state of weightlessness is a result of the fact that the ISS is in constant free fall, which according to the equivalence principle is indiscernible from being in a state of zero gravity. However, due to (1) the drag resulting from the residual atmosphere, (2) vibratory acceleration due to mechanical systems and the crew on board the ISS, (3) orbital corrections by the on-board gyroscopes or thrusters, and (4) the spatial separation from the real centre of mass of the ISS, the environment on the station is often described as microgravity, with a level of gravity on the order of 2 to 1000 millionths of g (the value varies with the frequency of the disturbance; the low value occurs at frequencies below 0.1 Hz, the higher value at frequencies of 100 Hz or more).[48]
Time zone
The ISS uses Greenwich mean time (GMT) to regulate its onboard day. This is roughly equidistant between its two control centres in Houston and Moscow. [49] The windows are covered at “night” to give the impression of darkness since it experiences 16 sunrises/sunsets a day.
Spacewalking U.S. and Swedish astronauts from the shuttle Discovery attached an 11-foot-long girder to the power system of the international space station on Tuesday.

The six-and-a-half-hour outing by Robert Curbeam and Christer Fuglesang was the first of three spacewalks scheduled by the shuttle crew this week to prepare the station’s electrical power grid for the future addition of European and Japanese laboratory modules.

Discovery delivered the two-ton aluminum girder as it docked with the space station on Monday.

“It feels good, I tell you,” said Curbeam, as he started his fourth spacewalk. The 44-year-old naval aviator assisted in the installation of the station’s U.S. science laboratory with three spacewalks during a 2001 station assembly mission.

Curbeam will lead spacewalks Thursday and Saturday as well.

Tuesday’s outing was the inaugural spacewalk for Fuglesang, a 49-year-old physicist and Sweden’s first astronaut.

The two men worked ahead of schedule, volunteering for extra tasks. They bolted the girder in place, attached power cables and replaced an external video camera, using battery-operated power tools.

Near the end of the spacewalk, Fuglesang lost an eight-inch long extender for his power tool. The one-pound metal extender drifted into space before Fuglesang realized he had forgotten to tie it down.

“I looked back, it was gone.” he explained to Mission Control.

The spacewalkers were assisted by astronaut Joan Higginbotham, one of the mission’s robot arm operators. She used the robot arm like a construction crane to hoist the new girder into place. The operation required some delicate maneuvers by Higginbotham, who guided the cumbersome hardware through some tight clearances with older parts of the station.

The spacewalks this week will prepare the station’s power grid to flow electricity to European and Japanese labs that are scheduled for launching in late 2007 and early 2008.

Curbeam and Fuglesang worked at the far end of a $372 million solar power module that was delivered to the station by the crew of the shuttle Atlantis in September.

The girder bolted to the recently installed power module by the two men will serve as the future attachment point for a solar power module that has generated electricity for the station since 2000. The six-year-old power module is in a temporary perch atop the station, and it is scheduled to be moved to its new location during a mission late next year.

Today, Discovery’s crew will send commands that retract a 120-foot-long solar panel that juts from the 6-year-old solar power module. The retraction will enable similar panels on the power module that was installed in September to begin rotating.

The slow rotations will enable the panels to track the sun for the first time as the space station orbits the Earth.

“This is a major milestone,” said NASA’s John Curry, the lead space station flight director.

Meanwhile, mission managers concluded on Tuesday that Discovery’s heat shield survived Saturday night’s liftoff without critical damage from flying debris.

The decision was based on external inspections of the shuttle on Sunday and Monday. The inspections became a regular part of each shuttle mission after the 2003 Columbia accident. The cause of the tragedy was traced to undetected heat shield damage from falling foam fuel tank insulation.
 

BANGKOK, Thailand - A passenger plane filled with foreign tourists crashed Sunday as it tried to land in heavy rain on the island of Phuket, splitting in two as it was engulfed in flames, officials said. At least 66 people were killed.

The budget One-Two-Go Airlines was carrying 123 passengers and five crew members on a domestic flight from the Thai capital of Bangkok to Phuket, one of the country’s major tourist destinations, according to the Thai television station TITV.

Survivors described their escape from the airplane’s windows as fires and smoke consumed the plane.

“I saw passengers engulfed in fire as I stepped over them on way out of the plane,” Parinwit Chusaeng, a survivor who suffered minor burns, told the Nation television channel. “I was afraid that the airplane was going to explode so I ran away.”

Phuket’s Deputy Governor Worapot Ratthaseema told The Associated Press that at least 66 bodies were laid out in the airport building.

“At least 66 people have been confirmed and 42 have been hospitalized,” Worapot said, adding the remaining passengers are missing.

Worapot could not say how many of the dead were foreigners but he said among the dead were Irish, Israeli, Australian and British passengers. He said as many as 27 of the injured were foreigners.

An Irish survivor, identified as Sean, told of being badly burned on his arms, legs and back as he escaped the flames. Speaking to TITV from a local hospital, he said he knew something was wrong even before the flight landed.

“You could tell when it was landing it was in trouble,” he said. “It was making a noise, this bang.”

Chaisak Angsuwan, director general of the Air Transport Authority of Thailand, said weather played a part in the crash.

Hato International Airport

Hato International Airport (IATA: CUR, ICAO: TNCC) is the airport of Willemstad, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles. It has services to the Caribbean Region, nearby South American cities, North America and Europe. Hato Airport is a fairly large facility, with one of the longest runways in the Caribbean region. The airport was the hub of Air ALM and its successor Dutch Caribbean Airlines, the flag carriers of the Netherlands Antilles until the latter ceased operations in 2004. The airport is now the hub of Dutch Antilles Express and the home base of Insel Air.

A new terminal was officially opened in 2006 and it accommodates a maximum of 1.6 million passengers per year.

Airlines and destinations
Aeropostal (Caracas, Santo Domingo)
Air Jamaica (Kingston, Montego Bay)
Aires (Barranquilla, Cartagena)
American Airlines (Miami)
American Eagle (San Juan)
Arkefly (Amsterdam)
Aserca Airlines (Caracas)
Avianca (Bogotá)
Avianca operated by SAM (Bogotá)
Avior Airlines (Valencia, Maracaibo, Caracas)
Continental Airlines (Newark)
Cubana de Aviación (Havana)
Divi Divi Air (Kralendijk, Charter Destinations)
Dutch Antilles Express (Bogotá, Caracas, Kralendijk, Oranjestad, Philipsburg, Valencia)
Insel Air (Kralendijk, Oranjestad, Philipsburg, Las Piedras, Paramaribo/Zanderij, Port of Spain, Port au Prince, Valencia)
KLM (Amsterdam)
LIAT (Port of Spain)
Martinair (Amsterdam, Barbados)
North American Airlines (Boston [seasonal])
SkyService (Toronto-Pearson [seasonal])
Surinam Airways (Oranjestad, Paramaribo/Zanderij, Port of Spain, Santo Domingo)
TACA (Lima, San Salvador)
Tiara Air (Oranjestad)
USA 3000 (Pittsburgh)
Viva Air (Punta Cana, Santiago, Santo Domingo)