Less than a year since winning a $4.2 billion slice of the $6.8 billion Commercial Crew transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract—the current phase of NASA’s effort to return U.S. astronauts to space, aboard a U.S.-built vehicle, and from U.S. soil—Boeing has taken a significant forward step as it prepares its CST-100 spacecraft for an initial unpiloted “shakedown” voyage in April 2017, then a crewed test flight to the International Space Station (ISS) in July 2017. This will be followed by the first contracted long-duration crew exchange mission, by either Boeing’s CST-100 or SpaceX’s Dragon V-2, at some stage after November 2017, on the eagerly awaited “U.S. Crew Vehicle-1” or “USCV-1.” In anticipation of Commercial Crew operations, the first two domes for CST-100’s Structural Test Article (STA) have been delivered to the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida, where they will be transferred to the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) Bay 3 for integration.
According to a NASA blog, posted Monday, 27 July, the twin domes will form the pressurized “shell” of the STA, which is not itself intended to fly with a human crew, but which is expected to yield significant insights into the manufacturing and processing methods for flight-ready CST-100 vehicles. The STA will be employed “to determine the effectiveness of the design and prove its escape system during a pad abort test,” it was explained. “The ability to abort from an emergency and safely carry crew members out of harm’s way is a critical element for NASA’s next generation of crew spacecraft.” In recent weeks, the main structure of the STA was friction-stir-welded into a single upper and lower hull, then machined to its final thickness. Throughout the second half of 2015, it will be outfitted with critical components and systems for an expansive testing program.
The majority of this work will be performed within OPF Bay 3—now known as the Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF)—which is situated to the northwest of the cavernous Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) and just across the street from its sisters, OPF Bays 1 and 2. This trio of processing facilities were employed at various stages throughout the 30-year space shuttle era to process Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour for their 135 historic missions. The predecessor of today’s OPF Bay 3 was activated in 1987 as the Orbiter Maintenance and Refurbishment Facility (OMRF), initially for non-hazardous and off-line processing of the shuttles. Its first client was Columbia, the queen of the fleet, which underwent low-key attention in the OMRF from September 1987 through July 1988, prior to moving into the fully equipped OPF Bay 2 to commence preparations for her first post-Challenger mission, STS-28.
Then, from 1989 through 1991, NASA implemented an extensive upgrade program to convert the OMRF into a third OPF bay, with about $46 million-worth of Ground Support Equipment (GSE) and work platforms transferred from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.—which might originally have supported a series of polar-orbiting shuttle flights from the West Coast in the pre-Challenger era—to the Cape. During this period, the facility was briefly occupied by Discovery in mid-1989, during the interval between her STS-29 and STS-33 missions, and again by Columbia for a handful of days in August 1991. With the “pooling” of other GSE across the three facilities, the conversion of the OMRF to OPF Bay 3 was accomplished for just $85 million, considerably lower than the $170 million expected to complete the task. When finished, OPF Bay 3 measured 197 feet (60 meters) in length, 150 feet (46 meters) wide, and 95 feet (29 meters) high, with adjacent areas for logistics and flight hardware storage.
Activated in September 1991, its first formal processing occupant was Discovery, fresh from her STS-48 mission to deploy NASA’s Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS). The orbiter spent 77 days in the new bay, being readied for her STS-42 International Microgravity Laboratory (IML)-1 research flight in January 1992. OPF Bay 3 subsequently supported Columbia and Endeavour, before being devoted chiefly to Discovery from the fall of 1992 through early 1994. It was later used almost exclusively by Atlantis and Endeavour from May 1994 through August 1997—punctuated on a couple of occasions, when it provided storage for orbiters newly returned or about to depart for major modification periods—and by all four shuttles into the present millennium. Poignantly, Columbia occupied OPF Bay 3 in the summer of 2002, just months before her ill-fated STS-107 mission. Following the resumption of flights in the summer of 2005, OPF Bay 3 was pivotal in processing the final voyages of the Space Shuttle Program, finally witnessing the rollover of Discovery to the VAB in September 2010 for stacking onto her External Tank (ET) and Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) for her swansong, the STS-133 mission to the ISS.
A year later, in October 2011, NASA signed a 15-year use permit with Space Florida, under which OPF Bay 3—together with the Space Shuttle Main Engine Processing Facility and Processing Control Center—were retasked for Boeing’s CST-100 program and subsequently renamed as the Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF). It was anticipated that the move would create up to 550 aerospace-related jobs along the Space Coast and was described as “the latest step … as the center transitions from a historically government-only launch complex to a multi-user spaceport.” At the same time, Boeing selected Florida for its Commercial Crew headquarters, citing not only “our NASA customer,” but also the “outstanding facilities and … experienced space workforce.” In July 2015, that transition is bearing fruit, with the maiden voyage of the CST-100 hopefully less than two years into the future. However, as cautioned in a recent article by AmericaSpace’s Jim Hillhouse, proposed congressional cuts to the Commercial Crew endeavor could render 2017 an increasingly unrealistic goal.
Last summer, on time and on-budget, Boeing concluded the final two milestones of its $460 million Commercial Crew integrated Capability (CCiCap) agreement with NASA, passing the Phase Two Spacecraft Safety Review and the Critical Design Review (CDR) of its integrated systems for the CST-100. Receipt of the CCiCap contract came after initial funding under the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program. The interior of the conical CST-100 capsule features therapeutic Boeing LED Sky Lighting technology—not dissimilar to that seen aboard Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner—and measures 15 feet (4.5 meters) in diameter at its base, making it somewhat larger than the Apollo Command Module (CM). It has the capacity to transport up to seven astronauts into orbit, can remain aloft for up to 210 days and is reusable for up to ten discrete missions. Under normal circumstances, it will be lofted atop a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V booster from Space Launch Complex (SLC)-41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. As described in a recent article by AmericaSpace’s Mike Killian, construction of the 200-foot-tall (60-meter) Crew Access Tower at the SLC-41 site is well underway.
Last September, Boeing secured a slice of the CCtCap “pie,” worth up to $4.2 billion, for the continued development of the CST-100. Under the terms of the contract, Boeing and SpaceX were required to fly at least one crewed test flight, with at least one NASA astronaut aboard, to verify that the fully integrated rocket and spacecraft can launch, maneuver in orbit and dock with the ISS. Successful completion of these milestones would then open the gates for between two and six dedicated crew rotation missions to the space station.
Earlier this year, John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Space Exploration, explained that the unpiloted CST-100 test flight would be launched atop ULA’s 74th Atlas V mission, after which the inaugural crewed mission would take place atop the 80th Atlas V, in the early-to-mid-2017 timeframe. Asked about the NASA/industry crew composition of the missions, he explained that having a Boeing test pilot aboard would be in keeping with the company’s flight test heritage. More recently, in July 2015, NASA assigned veteran spacefarers Eric Boe, Suni Williams, Doug Hurley, and Bob Behnken—the latter of whom had just stepped down from his previous post as Chief of the Astronaut Office—to begin training for Commercial Crew flights. Also in recent weeks, Boeing received the first of up to six orders to execute a crew-rotation mission of CST-100 to the space station.
Of course, flying these missions requires an active, operational docking interface, and NASA intended to deliver a pair of International Docking Adapters (IDAs) aboard SpaceX’s CRS-7 and CRS-9 Dragon cargo missions. The IDA-1 mechanism—which was to have been attached to Pressurized Mating Adapter (PMA)-2 on the forward face of the station’s Harmony node—would have been the primary Commercial Crew interface, but was lost in a launch failure on 28 June. The IDA-2 adapter will now assume the primary role, with IDA-3 to be assembled from spare parts and launched at a later date for installation onto the Pressurized Mating Adapter (PMA)-3 on Harmony’s space-facing (or “zenith”) port. Notwithstanding the disappointing loss of IDA-1, a major reconfiguration of the station’s U.S. Orbital Segment (USOS) is underway, with the Leonardo Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) having been robotically relocated to improve clearance issues on 27 May and PMA-3 due to be moved from its current home on the Tranquility node over to its final home at Harmony zenith in late-October 2015.
Want to keep up-to-date with all things space? Be sure to “Like” AmericaSpace on Facebook and follow us on Twitter: @AmericaSpace
The picture of “NASA astronaut Randy Bresnik getting ready to board Boeing’s CST-100 mock up for a fit check of the capsule.” shows him wearing what appears to be a standard ACES launch/entry suit.
The last detail I reviewed (sometime ago) on the CST-100, Boeing did not intend to use launch/entry suits.
Question: has the launch/entry suit situation changed?
Good piece – thanks for posting.
I have no info on the suit situation, but I can sure see an ACES suit being pulled out for a photo-op regardless of whether CST-100 will fly with them.
I’d still love to hear a rational on why CST-100 doesn’t have an in-flight abort test as a milestone. As far as I know it will be the first US capsule not to have one (I would say Gemini’s counts even if it wasn’t truly flying it was rocket propelled to simulate the in-flight drag and inertia conditions).
Scratch that… I found a news article from this April where a Boeing VP announced that they expect to unveil their suits this summer, and they are being designed by David Clark Co., the same company that designed the ACES suits.
That creates an interesting situation.
In the crew accommodations stuff I saw (some time ago) they were advertising a maximum crew of seven (without suits) and in order to achieve a seven crew had to carefully select the size of the crewmembers. A sort of if you are going to fly one big guy you have to fly one small guy kind if thing.
To use launch/entry suits will require not only the extra volume of the suits, but extra fans and ducting for the suit loop (not to mention more power/cooling requirements for the same size crew). That will all use extra mass and pressurized volume.
I will be interesting to see what affect that will have on CST-100 crew size.
I’d like to see how much room they end up having. From the pictures released of the mock-ups, even if they get bulked up a bit it still won’t be as cramped as a Soyuz.
David Clark’s web site shows their CHAPs suit which they are advertising for commercial sub-orbital and ISS use, available as a baseline to be modified to meet their customer’s needs. I’m suspecting now Boeing will go with a variant of that.
Even if it is snug, they’ll have recessed LED lighting to keep them calm and comfortable. It seriously gets to me how Boeing much keeps emphasizing that feature. Not that it’s a bad solution, it appears the obvious de-facto solution without unusual engineering hurdles, so it just seems odd how much they promote it relative to things like their pusher escape system.
“even if they get bulked up a bit it still won’t be as cramped as a Soyuz.”
True but the Soyuz only carries three people and using Soyuz for a roominess comparison is setting the bar pretty low.
I got the opportunity to get into one in Star City without a suit. I am 6’2″ and I could not sit in the seat without craning my neck. The Russians later had to rearrange the seating to accommodate the larger Astronauts.
Speaking of Astronauts, one (who had actually flown in the Soyuz) told me (concerning the cramping not safety) that if you are going to fly in it you better really like/trust the other two with whom you are flying.
Imagine how close you’d be with someone after 2-weeks in a Gemini spacecraft. I’m amazed Borman and Lovell are sane.
I have to admit, I never thought of that before.
Even though I am not particularly claustrophobic, I am now going to try to never think of it again. 🙂
Gemini has always seemed one of the least claustrophobic capsules to me, probably because of the big twin hatches (no crawling over each other to enter or egress and easier to fit through the hatch without getting hung up on anything), and the control console space between the seats giving a little more personal space.
Even then, taking a road trip in a car and never being able to leave your seat for two weeks would be no small amount of stress.
Saw a Gemini Capsule in a display in St. Louis with dummies in Launch/Entry suits.
I agree that the central console would give some sense of “personal space”. However, that “personal space” would be incredibly limited even in overhead (the hatches were open for the display, but there would be barely room to close them.
One thing to spend a few hours in there (even the approximately thirty hours it used to take the Soyuz to reach the ISS), but two weeks without even room to stretch would be quite an ordeal.
Pingback:CST-100 making progress | Off to the Space Races