To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Space Shuttle abort modes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abort modes available depending on engine failure time.
Abort modes available depending on engine failure time.

Space Shuttle abort modes were procedures by which the nominal launch of the NASA Space Shuttle could be terminated. A pad abort occurred after ignition of the shuttle's main engines but prior to liftoff. An abort during ascent that would result in the orbiter returning to a runway or to a lower than planned orbit was called an "intact abort", while an abort in which the orbiter would be unable to reach a runway, or any abort involving the failure of more than one main engine, was called a "contingency abort". Crew bailout was still possible in some situations where the orbiter could not land on a runway.

Redundant set launch sequencer abort

The three Space Shuttle main engines (SSMEs) were ignited roughly 6.6 seconds before liftoff, and computers monitored their performance as they increased thrust. If an anomaly was detected, the engines would be shut down automatically and the countdown terminated before ignition of the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) at T = 0 seconds. This was called a "redundant set launch sequencer (RSLS) abort", and happened five times: STS-41-D, STS-51-F, STS-55, STS-51, and STS-68.[1]

Ascent abort modes

Once the shuttle's SRBs were ignited, the vehicle was committed to liftoff. If an event requiring an abort happened after SRB ignition, it was not possible to begin the abort until after SRB burnout and separation about two minutes after launch. There were five abort modes available during ascent, divided into the categories of intact aborts and contingency aborts.[2] The choice of abort mode depended on how urgent the situation was, and what emergency landing site could be reached.

The abort modes covered a wide range of potential problems, but the most commonly expected problem was a main engine failure, causing the vehicle to have insufficient thrust to achieve its planned orbit. Other possible non-engine failures necessitating an abort included a multiple auxiliary power unit (APU) failure, a progressive hydraulic failure, a cabin leak, and an external tank leak.

Intact abort modes

Abort panel on Space Shuttle Challenger. Taken during STS-51-F with the switch on ATO mode
Abort panel on Space Shuttle Challenger. Taken during STS-51-F with the switch on ATO mode

There were four intact abort modes for the Space Shuttle. Intact aborts were designed to provide a safe return of the orbiter to a planned landing site or to a lower orbit than planned for the mission.

Return to launch site

Return to launch site (RTLS) was the first abort mode available and could be selected just after SRB jettison. The Shuttle would continue downrange to burn excess propellant, as well as pitch up to maintain vertical speed in aborts with a main engine failure. After burning sufficient propellant, the vehicle would be pitched all the way around and begin thrusting back towards the launch site. This maneuver was called the "powered pitcharound" (PPA) and was timed to ensure less than 2% propellant remained in the external tank by the time the Shuttle's trajectory brought it back to the Kennedy Space Center. Additionally, the Shuttle's OMS and reaction control system (RCS) motors would continuously thrust to burn off excess OMS propellant to reduce landing weight and adjust the orbiter's center of gravity.

Just before main engine cutoff, the orbiter would be commanded to pitch nose-down to ensure proper orientation for external tank jettison, since aerodynamic forces would otherwise cause the tank to collide with the orbiter. The main engines would cut off, and the tank would be jettisoned, as the orbiter used its RCS to increase separation.

Cutoff and separation would occur effectively inside the upper atmosphere at an altitude of about 230000 ft (70000 m), high enough to avoid subjecting the External Tank to excessive aerodynamic stress and heating. The cut off velocity would depend on the distance still to be travelled to reach the landing site, being higher the further away the orbiter was at cutoff. In any case, the orbiter would be flying too slowly to glide gently at such high altitude, and would start descending rapidly. A series of maneuvers in quick succession would pitch the orbiter's nose up to level off the orbiter once it reached thicker air, while at the same time ensuring that the structural limits of the vehicle were not exceeded ( the operational load limit was set to 2.5 Gs, and at 4.4 Gs the OMS pods were expected to be torn off the orbiter).

Once this phase was complete, the orbiter would be about 150 nm (278 km) from the landing site and in a stable glide, proceeding to make a normal landing about 25 minutes after lift-off.[3]

If a second main engine failed at any point during PPA, the Shuttle would not be able to make it back to the runway at KSC, and the crew would have to bail out. A failure of a third engine during PPA would lead to loss of control and subsequent loss of crew and vehicle (LOCV). Failure of all three engines as horizontal velocity approached zero or just before external tank jettison would also result in LOCV.[4]

The capsule communicator would call out the point in the ascent at which an RTLS was no longer possible as "negative return", approximately 4 minutes after lift-off, at which the vehicle would be unable to safely bleed off the velocity it had gained in the distance between its position downrange and the launch site.

The RTLS abort mode was never needed in the history of the shuttle program. It was considered the most difficult and dangerous abort, and also among the most unlikely abort to have ever been attempted since there were only a very narrow range of probable failures that were survivable but nevertheless so time-critical as to rule out more time-consuming abort modes. Astronaut Mike Mullane referred to the RTLS abort as an "unnatural act of physics", and many pilot astronauts hoped that they would not have to perform such an abort due to its difficulty.[5]

Transoceanic abort landing

A transoceanic abort landing (TAL) involved landing at a predetermined location in Africa, western Europe or the Atlantic Ocean (at Lajes Field in the Azores) about 25 to 30 minutes after lift-off.[6] It was to be used when velocity, altitude, and distance downrange did not allow return to the launch point by Return To Launch Site (RTLS). It was also to be used when a less time-critical failure did not require the faster but more dangerous RTLS abort.

For performance issues such as engine failure(s), a TAL abort would have been declared between roughly T+2:30 (2 minutes 30 seconds after liftoff) and about T+5:00 (5 minutes after liftoff), after which the abort mode changed to Abort Once Around (AOA) followed by Abort To Orbit (ATO). However in the event of a time-critical failure, or one that would jeopardize crew safety such as a cabin leak or cooling failure, TAL could be called until shortly before MECO or ever after MECO for severe underspeed conditions. The shuttle would then have landed at a predesignated airstrip across the Atlantic. The last four TAL sites were Istres Air Base in France, Zaragoza and Morón air bases in Spain, and RAF Fairford in England. Prior to a shuttle launch, two sites would be selected based on the flight plan and were staffed with standby personnel in case they were used. The list of TAL sites changed over time due to geopolitical factors. The exact sites were determined from launch to launch depending on orbital inclination.[6]

Preparations of TAL sites took four to five days and began one week before launch, with the majority of personnel from NASA, the Department of Defense and contractors arriving 48 hours before launch. Additionally, two C-130 aircraft from the manned space flight support office from the adjacent Patrick Air Force Base would deliver 8 crew members, 9 pararescuers, 2 flight surgeons, a nurse and medical technician, and 2,500 pounds (1,100 kg) of medical equipment to either Zaragoza, Istres, or both. One or more C-21s or C-12s aircraft would also be deployed to provide weather reconnaissance in the event of an abort with a TALCOM, or astronaut flight controller aboard for communications with the shuttle pilot and commander.[6]

This abort mode was never needed during the entire history of the Space Shuttle program.

Abort once around

An abort once around (AOA) was available if the shuttle was unable to reach a stable orbit but had sufficient velocity to circle the Earth once and land; all of which is completed around 90 minutes after lift-off. Around 5 minutes after lift-off, the shuttle reaches a velocity and altitude sufficient for a single orbit around Earth.[7] The orbiter would then proceed into re-entry; NASA can choose to have the orbiter land at Edwards Air Force Base, White Sands Space Harbor, or Kennedy Space Center.[7] The time window for using the AOA abort was very short: just a few seconds between the TAL and ATO abort opportunities. Therefore, taking this option due to a technical malfunction (such as an engine failure) was very unlikely, although a medical emergency on board was another possible scenario that could have necessitated an AOA abort.

This abort mode was never needed during the entire history of the space shuttle program.

Abort to orbit

An abort to orbit (ATO) was available when the intended orbit could not be reached but a lower stable orbit above 120 miles (190 km) above the earth's surface was possible.[7] This occurred on mission STS-51-F, when Challenger's center engine failed at the 5 minutes and 46 seconds mark after lift-off.[7] An orbit near their planned orbit was established, and the mission continued despite the abort to a lower orbit.[7][8] The Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas (located at Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center), observed an SSME failure and called "Challenger-Houston, abort ATO". The engine failure was later determined to be an inadvertent engine shutdown due to faulty temperature sensors.[7]

The moment at which an ATO became possible was referred to as the "press to ATO" moment. In an ATO situation, the spacecraft commander rotated the cockpit abort mode switch to the ATO position and depressed the abort push button. This initiated the flight control software routines which handled the abort. In the event of a loss of communications, the spacecraft commander could have made the abort decision and taken action independently.

A hydrogen fuel leak in one of the SSMEs on STS-93 resulted in a slight underspeed at main engine cut-off (MECO) but did not necessitate an ATO and the shuttle achieved its planned orbit; if the leak had been more severe it might have necessitated an ATO, RTLS, or TAL abort.


There was an order of preference for abort modes:

  1. ATO was the preferred abort option whenever possible.
  2. TAL was the preferred abort option if the vehicle had not yet reached a speed permitting the ATO option.
  3. AOA would have been only used in the brief window between TAL and ATO options, or if a time-critical emergency (such as a medical emergency on board) developed after the end of the TAL window.
  4. RTLS resulted in the quickest landing of all abort options, but was considered the riskiest abort. Therefore, it would have been selected only in cases where the developing emergency was so time-critical that the other aborts were not feasible, or in cases where the vehicle had insufficient energy to perform the other aborts.

Unlike all other United States crew vehicles (both previous and subsequent, as of 2020), the shuttle was never flown without astronauts aboard. To provide an incremental non-orbital test, NASA considered making the first mission an RTLS abort. However, STS-1 commander John Young declined, saying, "let's not practice Russian roulette"[9] and "RTLS requires continuous miracles interspersed with acts of God to be successful".[10]

Contingency aborts

Contingency aborts involved failure of more than one SSME and would generally have left the orbiter unable to reach a runway.[11] These aborts were intended to ensure the survival of the orbiter long enough for the crew to bail out. Loss of two engines would have generally been survivable by using the remaining engine to optimize the orbiter's trajectory so as to not exceed structural limits during reentry. Loss of three engines could have been survivable outside of certain "black zones" where the orbiter would have failed before bailout was possible.[4] These contingency aborts were added after the destruction of Challenger.

Post-Challenger abort enhancements

Abort options up to STS-51-L.  Black zones indicate unsurvivable failures.
Abort options up to STS-51-L. Black zones indicate unsurvivable failures.
Abort options after STS-51-L.  Grey zones indicate failures in which the orbiter could remain intact until crew bailout.
Abort options after STS-51-L. Grey zones indicate failures in which the orbiter could remain intact until crew bailout.

Before the Challenger disaster during STS-51-L, ascent abort options involving failure of more than one SSME were very limited. While failure of a single SSME was survivable throughout ascent, failure of a second SSME prior to about 350 seconds (the point at which the orbiter would have sufficient downrange velocity to reach a TAL site on just one engine) would mean an LOCV, since no bailout option existed. Studies showed that an ocean ditching was not survivable. Furthermore, the loss of a second SSME during an RTLS abort would have caused an LOCV except for the period of time just prior to MECO (during which the orbiter would be able to reach KSC by prolonging the burn time of the remaining engine), as would a triple SSME failure at any point during an RTLS abort.

After the loss of Challenger in STS-51-L, numerous abort enhancements were added. With those enhancements, the loss of two SSMEs was now survivable for the crew throughout the entire ascent, and the vehicle could survive and land for large portions of the ascent. The struts attaching the orbiter to the external tank were strengthened to better endure a multiple SSME failure during SRB flight. Loss of three SSMEs was survivable for the crew for most of the ascent, although survival in the event of three failed SSMEs before T+90 seconds was unlikely due to design loads being exceeded on the forward orbiter/ET and SRB/ET attach points, and still problematic at any time during SRB flight due to controllability during staging.[4]

A particularly significant enhancement was bailout capability. Unlike the ejection seat in a fighter plane, the shuttle had an inflight crew escape system[12] (ICES). The vehicle was put in a stable glide on autopilot, the hatch was blown, and the crew slid out a pole to clear the orbiter's left wing. They would then parachute to earth or the sea. While this at first appeared only usable under rare conditions, there were many failure modes where reaching an emergency landing site was not possible yet the vehicle was still intact and under control. Before the Challenger disaster, this almost happened on STS-51-F, when a single SSME failed at about T+345 seconds. The orbiter in that case was also Challenger. A second SSME almost failed due to a spurious temperature reading; however the engine shutdown was inhibited by a quick-thinking flight controller. If the second SSME had failed within about 69 seconds of the first, there would have been insufficient energy to cross the Atlantic. Without bailout capability, the entire crew would have been killed. After the loss of Challenger, those types of failures were made survivable. To facilitate high-altitude bailouts, the crew began wearing the Launch Entry Suit and later the Advanced Crew Escape Suit during ascent and descent. Before the Challenger disaster, crews for operational missions wore only fabric flight suits.

Another post-Challenger enhancement was the addition of East Coast/Bermuda abort landings (ECAL/BDA). High-inclination launches (including all ISS missions) would have been able to reach an emergency runway on the East Coast of North America under certain conditions. Most lower-inclination launches would have landed in Bermuda (although this option was not available for the very lowest-inclination launches—those to an orbital inclination of 28.5°—which launched due east from KSC and passed far to the south of Bermuda).

An ECAL/BDA abort was similar to RTLS, but instead of landing at the Kennedy Space Center, the orbiter would attempt to land at another site along the east coast of North America (in the case of ECAL) or Bermuda (in the case of BDA). Various potential ECAL landing sites extended from South Carolina into Newfoundland, Canada. The designated landing site in Bermuda was Naval Air Station Bermuda (a United States Navy facility). ECAL/BDA was a contingency abort that was less desirable than an intact abort, primarily because there was so little time to choose the landing site and prepare for the orbiter's arrival. All of the pre-designated sites were either military airfields or joint civil/military facilities. ECAL emergency sites were not as well equipped to accommodate an orbiter landing as those prepared for RTLS and TAL aborts.[13] The sites were not staffed with NASA employees or contractors and the staff working there were given no special training to handle a Shuttle landing. If they were ever needed, the Shuttle pilots would have had to rely on regular air traffic control personnel using procedures similar to those used to land a gliding aircraft that has suffered complete engine failure.

Numerous other abort refinements were added, mainly involving improved software for managing vehicle energy in various abort scenarios. These enabled a greater chance of reaching an emergency runway for various SSME failure scenarios.

Ejection escape systems

An ejection escape system, sometimes called a "launch escape system", had been discussed many times for the shuttle. After the Challenger and Columbia losses, great interest was expressed in this. All previous and subsequent US manned space vehicles have launch escape systems, although as of 2021 none have ever been used for a manned flight by the United States.

Ejection seat

The first two shuttles, Enterprise and Columbia, were built with ejection seats. It was only these two that were planned to be flown with a crew of two. Subsequent shuttles were built only for missions with a crew of more than two, including seats in the lower deck, and ejection seat options were deemed to be infeasible, so Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour were built with no ejection seats. The type used on the first two shuttles were modified versions of the seats used in the Lockheed SR-71. The approach and landing tests flown by Enterprise had these as an escape option, and the first four flights of Columbia had this option as well. But STS-5 was the first mission to have a crew of more than two, and the commander made the decision that the ethical thing to do was to fly with the ejection seats disabled.[citation needed] Columbia's next flight (STS-9) was likewise flown with the seats disabled. By the time Columbia flew again (STS-61-C, launched on January 12, 1986), it had been through a full maintenance overhaul at Palmdale and the ejection seats (along with the explosive hatches) had been fully removed. Ejection seats were not further developed for the shuttle for several reasons:

  • Very difficult to eject seven crew members when three or four were on the middeck (roughly the center of the forward fuselage), surrounded by substantial vehicle structure.
  • Limited ejection envelope. Ejection seats only work up to about 3,400 miles per hour (3,000 kn; 5,500 km/h) and 130,000 feet (40,000 m). That constituted a very limited portion of the shuttle's operating envelope, about the first 100 seconds of the 510 seconds powered ascent.
  • No help during a Columbia-type reentry accident. Ejecting during an atmospheric reentry accident would have been fatal due to the high temperatures and wind blast at high Mach speeds.
  • Astronauts were skeptical of the ejection seats' usefulness. STS-1 pilot Robert Crippen stated:

[I]n truth, if you had to use them while the solids were there, I don’t believe you would—if you popped out and then went down through the fire trail that’s behind the solids, that you would have ever survived, or if you did, you wouldn't have a parachute, because it would have been burned up in the process. But by the time the solids had burned out, you were up to too high an altitude to use it. ... So I personally didn't feel that the ejection seats were really going to help us out if we really ran into a contingency.[14]

The Soviet shuttle Buran was planned to be fitted with the crew emergency escape system, which would have included K-36RB (K-36M-11F35) seats and the Strizh full-pressure suit, qualified for altitudes up to 30,000 m and speeds up to Mach three.[15] Buran flew only once in fully automated mode without a crew, thus the seats were never installed and were never tested in real human space flight.

Ejection capsule

An alternative to ejection seats was an escape crew capsule or cabin escape system where the crew ejected in protective capsules, or the entire cabin is ejected. Such systems have been used on several military aircraft. The B-58 Hustler and XB-70 Valkyrie used capsule ejection, while the General Dynamics F-111 and early prototypes of the Rockwell B-1 Lancer used cabin ejection.

Like ejection seats, capsule ejection for the shuttle would have been difficult because no easy way existed to exit the vehicle. Several crewmembers sat in the middeck, surrounded by substantial vehicle structure.

Cabin ejection would work for a much larger portion of the flight envelope than ejection seats, as the crew would be protected from temperature, wind blast, and lack of oxygen or vacuum. In theory an ejection cabin could have been designed to withstand reentry, although that would entail additional cost, weight and complexity. Cabin ejection was not pursued for several reasons:

  • Major modifications required to shuttle, likely taking several years. During much of the period the vehicle would be unavailable.
  • Cabin ejection systems are heavy, thus incurring a significant payload penalty.
  • Cabin ejection systems are much more complex than ejection seats. They require devices to cut cables and conduits connecting the cabin and fuselage. The cabin must have aerodynamic stabilization devices to avoid tumbling after ejection. The large cabin weight mandates a very large parachute, with a more complex extraction sequence. Air bags must deploy beneath the cabin to cushion impact or provide flotation. To make on-the-pad ejections feasible, the separation rockets would have to be quite large. In short, many complex things must happen in a specific timed sequence for cabin ejection to be successful, and in a situation where the vehicle might be disintegrating. If the airframe twisted or warped, thus preventing cabin separation, or debris damaged the landing airbags, stabilization, or any other cabin system, the occupants would likely not survive.
  • Added risk due to many large pyrotechnic devices. Even if not needed, the many explosive devices needed to separate the cabin entail some risk of premature or uncommanded detonation.
  • Cabin ejection is much more difficult, expensive and risky to retrofit on a vehicle not initially designed for it. Had the shuttle been initially designed with a cabin escape system, adding one might have been more feasible.
  • Cabin/capsule ejection systems have a patchy success record. Al White suffered a crushed arm when ejecting from the XB-70 mid-air collision[16]

Space Shuttle abort history


Date Orbiter Mission Abort type Abort time Description
1984-06-26 Discovery STS-41-D RSLS T−4 seconds Sluggish valve detected in Space Shuttle main engine (SSME) No. 3. Discovery rolled back to VAB for engine replacement.
1985-07-12 Challenger STS-51-F RSLS T−3 seconds Coolant valve problem with SSME No. 2. Valve was replaced on launch pad.
1985-07-29 Challenger STS-51-F ATO T+5 minutes, 45 seconds Sensor problem shutdown SSME No. 1. Mission continued in lower than planned orbit.
1993-03-22 Columbia STS-55 RSLS T−3 seconds Problem with purge pressure readings in the oxidizer preburner on SSME No. 2. All engines replaced on pad.
1993-08-12 Discovery STS-51 RSLS T−3 seconds Sensor that monitors flow of hydrogen fuel in SSME No. 2 failed. All engines replaced on launch pad.
1994-08-18 Endeavour STS-68 RSLS T−1 second Sensor detected higher than acceptable readings of the discharge temperature of the high pressure oxidizer turbopump in SSME No. 3. Endeavour rolled back to VAB to replace all three engines. A test firing at Stennis Space Center confirmed a drift in the fuel flow meter which resulted in a slower start in the engine which caused the higher temperatures.

Emergency landing sites

Pre-determined emergency landing sites for the orbiter were chosen on a mission-by-mission basis according to the mission profile, weather and regional political situations. Emergency landing sites during the shuttle program included:[18][19]
Sites in which an orbiter has landed are listed in bold, but none is an emergency landing.






Cape Verde



The Gambia



  • Souda Air Base, Souda Bay, Crete






Saudi Arabia



South Africa



United Kingdom

British Overseas Territories

United States

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Other locations

In the event of an emergency deorbit that would bring the orbiter down in an area not within range of a designated emergency landing site, the orbiter was theoretically capable of landing on any paved runway that was at least 3 km (9,800 ft) long, which included the majority of large commercial airports. In practice, a US or allied military airfield would have been preferred for reasons of security arrangements and minimizing the disruption of commercial air traffic.

In popular culture

See also


  1. ^ NASA - Mission Profile
  2. ^ "Shuttle Abort Modes". Shuttle Reference and Data. NASA. Retrieved 2006-12-09.
  3. ^ "NASA Intact Ascent Aborts Workbook, chapter 6 RETURN TO LAUNCH SITE" (PDF).
  4. ^ a b c "Contingency Aborts" (PDF). Retrieved February 1, 2015.
  5. ^ Mullane, Mike (2006). Riding Rockets: The Outrageous Tales of a Space Shuttle Astronaut. New York: Scribner. p. 588.
  6. ^ a b c "Space Shuttle Transoceanic Abort Landing (TAL) Sites" (PDF). National Aeronautics and Space Administration. December 2006. Retrieved 2009-07-01.
  7. ^ a b c d e f Mullane, Mike (1997). Do Your Ears Pop in Space? and 500 other surprising questions about space travel. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 60. ISBN 0471154040.
  8. ^ "STS-51F National Space Transportation System Mission Report". NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. September 1985. p. 2. Retrieved 16 January 2020.
  9. ^ "Astronauts in Danger". Popular Mechanics. December 2000. Retrieved 2006-12-09.
  10. ^ Dunn, Terry (2014-02-26). "The Space Shuttle's Controversial Launch Abort Plan". Tested.
  11. ^ "Space Shuttle Abort Evolution" (PDF). Retrieved February 1, 2015.
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^ "Robert L. Crippen", NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project, 26 May 2006.
  15. ^ "Emergency escape systems of RD&PE Zvezda". Archived from the original on 2013-01-15.
  16. ^ Winchester, Jim (2005). "North American XB-70 Valkyrie". Concept Aircraft: Prototypes, X-Planes and Experimental Aircraft. San Diego, California: Thunder Bay Press. p. 186. ISBN 9781840138092.
  17. ^
  18. ^ Dennis R. Jenkins (2001). Space shuttle: the history of the National Space Transportation System : the first 100 missions.
  19. ^ Worldwide Shuttle Landing Site information
  20. ^ Kerrie Dougherty and Matthew L. James (1993). Space Australia: the story of Australia's involvement in space. Powerhouse.
  21. ^ Fire Causes Military Plane To Make Emergency Landing, - 2017-Aug-03
  22. ^ Ministry Shares Details of Emergency Landing, Barbados - Daily Nation Newspaper 2017-Aug-03
  23. ^ NASA aircraft in emergency landing, PressReader Online
  24. ^ "NASA SPACE SHUTTLE EMERGENCY LANDING SITE CONTINGENCY PLAN" (PDF). Transport Canada. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-05-17.
  25. ^ CFB Namao Alberta Online Encyclopedia - Alberta's Aviation Heritage. Retrieved: 2011-03-01
  26. ^ "France to assist NASA with the future launches of the Space Shuttle". Retrieved 2009-08-27.
  27. ^ "Somaliland's missing identity". BBC. 5 May 2005.
  28. ^ "NASA Names North Carolina Airport Emergency Landing Site for Shuttle". Retrieved 2009-01-17.

External links

This page was last edited on 12 April 2021, at 12:30
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.