-
#40
by
nethegauner
on 25 Jan, 2007 11:48
-
FransonUK - 25/1/2007 11:22 AM
nethegauner - 25/1/2007 3:52 AM
It seems that I have lost track of the 1E cargo arrangement.
The graphic is on the first post of this thread, if that is what you mean?
No. I meant I had lost track of the cargo arrangement
development. All current documentation that I know of has the ICC-Lite flying on 1E, but the crew inspected an MPESS-ND during the CEIT---so that's what confused me.
-
#41
by
shostetler
on 26 Jan, 2007 05:12
-
It sure seems like a lot of wasted space in front of the Columbus module. I mean... seems they could easily slide the cupola in there as well, atleast it'd be up there to install at a later date or something. I just can't imagine that with the limited number of shuttle flights remaining that such an amount of space would be left unused.
-
#42
by
nethegauner
on 26 Jan, 2007 07:16
-
shostetler - 26/1/2007 7:12 AM
It sure seems like a lot of wasted space in front of the Columbus module. I mean... seems they could easily slide the cupola in there as well, atleast it'd be up there to install at a later date or something. I just can't imagine that with the limited number of shuttle flights remaining that such an amount of space would be left unused.
Weight counts, not space. And keep in mind that Discovery is not capable to lift as much weight as Atlantis and Endeavour. On STS-100, there was an MPLM and a pallet, but that was OV-104.
-
#43
by
nathan.moeller
on 26 Jan, 2007 12:45
-
nethegauner - 26/1/2007 2:16 AM
shostetler - 26/1/2007 7:12 AM
It sure seems like a lot of wasted space in front of the Columbus module. I mean... seems they could easily slide the cupola in there as well, atleast it'd be up there to install at a later date or something. I just can't imagine that with the limited number of shuttle flights remaining that such an amount of space would be left unused.
Weight counts, not space. And keep in mind that Discovery is not capable to lift as much weight as Atlantis and Endeavour. On STS-100, there was an MPLM and a pallet, but that was OV-104.
Exactly. That was the big reasoning behind switching STS-121 from Atlantis to Discovery after they figured they were going to delay for a while after STS-114. They were going to have to use Atlantis for STS-115 anyway and it would be a tight processing flow to whip her around for a second launch in about three months after STS-121. Discovery can't lift truss segments such as P3/P4 or S6 or whatever. It's too heavy. Atlantis and Endeavour are both lighter vehicles and have more cargo capacity (btw STS-100 was with Endeavour which is OV-105, Atlantis is OV-104). If you look at the FAWG manifest, you can see Discovery's payloads aren't all that heavy compared to the payloads Atlantis and Endeavour have been tasked with hauling up.
-
#44
by
paulhbell07
on 26 Jan, 2007 15:39
-
I knew that there was a difference in weight between the orbiters, but I didn't think it was a big difference.
-
#45
by
stefan1138
on 26 Jan, 2007 16:40
-
How much exactly is the current weight difference between the orbiters?
Stefan
-
#46
by
nathan.moeller
on 26 Jan, 2007 16:50
-
From KSC website:
Columbia: 158, 289 lbs/178,000 lbs with SSMEs
Challenger: 155,400 lbs/175,111 lbs with SSMEs
Discovery: 151,419 lbs/171,000 lbs with SSMEs
Atlantis: 151,315 lbs/171,000 lbs with SSMEs
Endeavour: 151,205 lbs/172,000 lbs with SSMEs
-
#47
by
stefan1138
on 26 Jan, 2007 16:59
-
Thanx very much!
According to this overview the weight difference is really minmal.
How come Endeavour with SSMEs is heavier?
Stefan
-
#48
by
paulhbell07
on 26 Jan, 2007 17:12
-
So only approx 6,000lbs difference between orbiters. Not as much as I thought.
How much does enterprise weigh
-
#49
by
Jim
on 26 Jan, 2007 17:33
-
paulhbell07 - 26/1/2007 1:12 PM
So only approx 6,000lbs difference between orbiters. Not as much as I thought.
How much does enterprise weigh
that is as much as some spacecraft
-
#50
by
nathan.moeller
on 26 Jan, 2007 17:51
-
paulhbell07 - 26/1/2007 12:12 PM
So only approx 6,000lbs difference between orbiters. Not as much as I thought.
How much does enterprise weigh
It doesn't sound like much but every pound can make a difference when it comes to mission planning and execution. The size of payload bays also varies a little bit from shuttle to shuttle I believe. Columbia had the smallest bay of all. That also makes a difference when it comes to assigning payloads to spacecraft.
Enterprise was probably a little bit lighter because it was a landing-test article for the most part. It was in the neighborhood of 150,000 lbs. I don't believe it ever had real main engines. They were simulations, as were the OMS engines. I could be wrong but that's the jist I got from KSC.
-
#51
by
Jim
on 26 Jan, 2007 17:54
-
payload bays were all the same
-
#52
by
nathan.moeller
on 27 Jan, 2007 02:02
-
Jim - 26/1/2007 12:54 PM
payload bays were all the same
Must have misunderstood something. I remember a History Channel documentary saying they considered taking Columbia out of the service in 2001 because of its age and limited cargo capacity. But then again I guess that had to do with weight not payload bay size. Can you elaborate a bit on what caused the differences in weight?
-
#53
by
Jorge
on 27 Jan, 2007 02:46
-
nathan.moeller - 26/1/2007 9:02 PM
Jim - 26/1/2007 12:54 PM
payload bays were all the same
Must have misunderstood something. I remember a History Channel documentary saying they considered taking Columbia out of the service in 2001 because of its age and limited cargo capacity. But then again I guess that had to do with weight not payload bay size. Can you elaborate a bit on what caused the differences in weight?
Columbia was built using an earlier (and more conservative) structural loads database, so its internal structure was a bit heavier than the later orbiters.
There was also quite a bit of Development Flight Instrumentation (DFI) in Columbia that wasn't in the later orbiters. Much of that had been removed by the time of STS-107. Ironically, some of the instrumentation that remained provided important forensic evidence for the CAIB.
--
JRF
-
#54
by
Chris Bergin
on 31 Jan, 2007 01:32
-
Some snippets from L2 on processing - dated today:
OV-103 (STS-122)/OPF-3
Work continues in prep for RH OMS pod removal; scheduled for Thursday, Feb 8.
OEL work continues with wire cutting, crimping, terminating, and harness buildup in support of the SSPTS mod.
New PR - COM-3-34-0413. Suspect active pitting corrosion on mounting surface of GPS Receiver. Engineering analysis I/W.
-
#55
by
Do Shuttles Dream
on 31 Jan, 2007 13:00
-
How long does she have to go through post flight processing? Is there a point where pre-flight processing begins, or do they both overlap?
-
#56
by
Jim
on 31 Jan, 2007 13:15
-
Do Shuttles Dream - 31/1/2007 9:00 AM
How long does she have to go through post flight processing? Is there a point where pre-flight processing begins, or do they both overlap?
They overlap
-
#57
by
Orbiter Obvious
on 01 Feb, 2007 02:14
-
Thanks Jim. Learning curve for a lot of us here. Good question DSD.
-
#58
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Feb, 2007 18:59
-
Snippet from L2:
OV-103 (STS-122)/OPF-3
Hyper de-servicing and pod removal preps continue supporting removal of the RH OMS pod.
122V-0001 Fuel cell #3 flow meter T\S BOBs installed yesterday; pick up with testing today.
FWD, MID, and AFT continues with SSPTS mod.
Window #5 installation is complete; final torques complete; loctite on hold for lot# issues on windows 1 & 2. Window #6 removal completed on 2nd shift.
LH2 and LO2 monoball removal will be put into work today with monoball connector inspections scheduled for tomorrow.
PLT\CDR seats ICU fit check complete and good.
-
#59
by
MySDCUserID
on 02 Feb, 2007 22:46
-
nathan.moeller - 26/1/2007 9:02 PM
Jim - 26/1/2007 12:54 PM
payload bays were all the same
Must have misunderstood something. I remember a History Channel documentary saying they considered taking Columbia out of the service in 2001 because of its age and limited cargo capacity. But then again I guess that had to do with weight not payload bay size. Can you elaborate a bit on what caused the differences in weight?
I believe the payload bay difference was the airlock position. In the payload bay vs. in the mid deck.
