In the event, the cosmonauts extinguished the fire in only 90 seconds.The emphasis has been on finding astronauts with superior psychological as well as physical make-up rather than on creating environments suited to lesser mortals Nasa’s selection process has two levels of screening. The generator was only present to give the cosmonauts air to breathe. The former want more room for humans, for example; the latter want to minimise the volume of the craft for fuel economy and structural reasons.Making provision for humans greatly increases the complexity of any craft and builds in the potential for extra problems. Proponents of manned space exploration are quick to counter that human ingenuity is often equally quick to solve the problems. This double-edged sword was in evidence aboard Mir last February, when fire broke out within a ruptured oxygen generator in the worst such accident recorded in orbit. “Many of us want to be in space or have our representatives in space,” says Albert Harrison, professor of psychology at the University of California, Davis, and a Nasa consultant.The aim, then, is to make the best of a bad job.

Often, the human factors scientists’ wish is the engineers’ nightmare. They are duty-bound to agree that these harsh and dangerous environments are eminently avoidable But many share the astronauts’ frontier dream. “It gets pushed back, unless you have something happen.”Some scientists believe that manned missions are stunts that place astronauts in unnecessary danger and that useful work can be done using robots and other equipment working under remote control The human factors experts are at the heart of a paradox. “Human factors doesn’t really get talked about much,” says Handberg.

And the signs are that they have not.The science that deals with how well our environment and tools are suited to their users is ergonomics – often called human factors in the US. Frustrations, tensions and dangers could build aboard this new station if the lessons of Mir have not been learnt. These will be placed in orbit in a series of launches starting later this year. Research on the station is due to start in 1999, with full operation by 2002, but delays are likely as Nasa struggles to stay within budgets capped by Congress. After his shift aboard the Russian station in 1995, a European Space Agency astronaut, Thomas Reiter, compiled what amounted to a Which? report on the spacecraft. Limited storage space meant that excess equipment had to be stowed improperly wherever room could be found. Scientific apparatus had to be lashed into position in ad hoc fashion because the designed fastenings were not up to the task.

“With a few exceptions, the manufacturers had not provided … adequate means for easy handling (loops, eyes, etc), nor were there sufficient aids for fixing the equipment in its storage/working location (rubber bands, belts, etc),” Reiter observed.
These difficulties are unlikely to remain exclusive to the Russians. Nasa recently indicated that it will extend the working life of its Shuttles – the spacecraft that carry astronauts back and forth to orbiting space stations – from 2012 to perhaps as long away as 2030. “In the not too distant future, Shuttles will likely be older than their pilots,” says Professor Roger Handberg, at the Center for Space Law and Policy at the University of Central Florida. As aboard Mir, it may be that old equipment is not stripped out as it becomes redundant, but is simply left dormant while modern replacements add to the clutter.One of Mir’s purposes has been to serve as a prototype environment for the International Space Station for which components are currently under construction around the world. This would again be a world-wide bestseller.”Recalling the events immediately after death of the Princess of Wales, he says: “I was faced with an avalanche of orders for the original, paperback edition of Andrew Morton’s book. Then, at some point in the future, we would have been able to startle the world with the new version.

I can assure you that world-wide this would have resulted in sales of many millions. He tells Steve Boggan that it would have been dishonest to rush a reprint of the old version into the shops.
Michael O’Mara, the publisher of Diana: Her True Story – In Her Own Words, last night defended his decision to publish the book, claiming that simply reprinting the original would have amounted to a “hoax” on the public.In a letter published in today’s Independent, Mr O’Mara said he and Andrew Morton could have made millions of pounds by reprinting the original now and then publishing the new version – containing the transcripts of interviews with the Princess – at some point in the future, thereby making millions more.Last night, in a separate interview, Mr O’Mara said that he would consider setting up a charity dedicated to the removal and banning of landmines if – as reported in some newspapers yesterday – the charities to which he planned to make a “substantial” donation decided not to accept his money.Explaining why he decided to go ahead with the new version of the book, he wrote: “Purely from a financial point of view, the easiest option would have been to keep quiet and continue reprinting the original book. The publisher of Andrew Morton’s book on Diana, Princess of Wales, has spoken for the first time of his decision to release a new version containing transcripts of taped interviews with her. “It is difficult to keep my faith,” he conceded, hands together, pressed against his face.But for both the Woodwards there was this one sign of hope in the service.