Orion overweight Part II

[docm]

AviationWeek;<br /><br />http://www.avweek.com/avnow/news/channel_space_story.jsp?id=news/ORI12206.xml<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Orion On Track But Overweight; Funding Crunch Could Hit In '07</b><br /><br />By Frank Morring, Jr./Aerospace Daily & Defense Report<br />12/20/2006 09:59:37 AM<br /><br />NASA's Orion crew exploration vehicle remains on schedule to carry humans to the International Space Station no later than 2014, and possibly earlier, but it will need to go on a New Year's diet to lose about 3,000 pounds of excess weight.<br /><br />Managers are confident the weight can be trimmed, but they are still studying how the lack of a NASA appropriations bill will affect Orion spending in 2007. Congress adjourned without passing one, and spending levels set by the continuing resolution adopted instead - based on last year's levels - could start to pinch in a few months.<br /><br />"We had a real good year," said Caris A. (Skip) Hatfield, the Orion project manager at Johnson Space Center. "We hit all the major milestones that we set out to hit this year."<br /><br />That included setting a final configuration for the capsule, which is being developed as a safer route to get crews of six to low Earth orbit and ultimate four-member crews into orbit around the moon. Last week, engineers from NASA and Orion prime contractor Lockheed Martin finished merging design concepts from Lockheed Martin, losing bidder Northrop Grumman/Boeing and two NASA-backed approaches.<br /><br />But in picking what Hatfield, in an interview with DAILY sister publication Aviation Week termed "the best of all those concepts," Orion went about 3,000 pounds over the 62,000 pounds it is planned to weigh when it takes off with a crew of four to rendezvous with its lunar injection stage in Earth orbit. That figure includes the standard weight growth allowance</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Orion On Track But Overweight</font>/i><br /><br />Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is going through the same process now. The Airbus 380 is also struggling with weight. I remember reading similar stories with the Shuttle orbiter in the 1970s. It seems to be part and parcel with aerospace efforts.</i>

 

[drwayne]

"It seems to be part and parcel with aerospace efforts."<br /><br />And for those of us who work thereon. (He said, having lost 30 pounds in the last 6 months)<br /><br />Sometimes trying to make weight while you get things assembled and working together is like trying to optimize software as you write it - in the end, you end up with more problems that you solved.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[bpfeifer]

And it's not just during the initial design phase. The Columbia weighed considerably more than the follow-n Shuttles. You can bet the same thing will happen with the Orion if they keep building and flying them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Brian J. Pfeifer http://sabletower.wordpress.com<br /> The Dogsoldier Codex http://www.lulu.com/sabletower<br /> </div>

 

[BReif]

From what I have been told by some aero-space engineers I know, this is a normal part of the design process. 3000 lbs. is a drop in the bucket, and can be shaved off pretty easily. Same thing happened with the Apollo Lunar module. Their solution was to eliminate large windows and seats, in favor of smaller windows, and having the crew stand, shaving off the weight.<br /><br />They will figure it out, and we will get a fully operational and functional Orion. There is more testing and dsign to be done.

 

[qso1]

RadarRedux:<br />It seems to be part and parcel with aerospace efforts. <br /><br />Me;<br />You betcha. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[halman]

bpfeifer,<br /><br />Perhaps I am wrong, but I seem to recall that the Columbia was heavier than the other orbiters because it was designed to be beefier, due to the fact that it was the first of this new breed. After the first few flights, the design of the other orbiters was modified, reducing the amount of structural bracing, the size of some frame components, and other parts of the frame. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[drwayne]

This is also related to why Enterprise was never rebuilt into a space flight item, and instead, another space frame became Challenger...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>