Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Docking standard for the International Space Station

internationaldockingstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#11

Post by smithian »

This is not actually the interface that is used on the Dragon. This is a docking mechanism, which allows autonomous connections between two spacecraft. The Dragon uses the Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) which requires assistance from a manipulator arm to mate the two spacecraft.

One of the reasons the CBM was chosen for the resupply ships (including Dragon) is that the CBM has a larger inside diameter and so larger pieces of equipment (such as standard equipment racks) can be delivered through it, while the docking connectors cannot pass them.

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#12

Post by jimktrains2 »

dexen wrote: post #4
unwind wrote: post #3

Clearly, section 3.2.1 is the most important part: All dimensions are in millimeters. All angular dimensions are in degrees Implementors in non-metric countries, take note. Nothing is more annoying than arriving at a place where you might want to use your docking interface, only to find out it doesn't work. :)

>Nothing is more annoying than arriving at a place (...) to find out it doesn't work. :) Which has sort-of happened already in history of space exploration, when Mars Climate Orbiter mis-handled Mars orbitial insertion and was lost. The problem was traced down to mis-match of measurement units used in software (Newtons vs. Pound-force). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_f...

IIRC, it was an accumulation of errors when converting between units, not a unit mis-match.

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#14

Post by wallflower »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #5
dexen wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nothing is more annoying than arriving at a place (...) to find out it doesn't work. :) Which has sort-of happened already in history of space exploration, when Mars Climate Orbiter mis-handled Mars orbitial insertion and was lost. The problem was traced down to mis-match of measurement units used in software (Newtons vs. Pound-force). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_f...

Yep happened once in 50 years of space travel. Ugh, we get it, everyone thinks they're being cute and its a way to mock US units. Yes, yes, this isn't getting incredibly tiresome.

The most famous smallest but most significant human error was Mariner I:

"The error had occurred when a symbol was being transcribed by hand in the specification for the guidance program. The writer missed the superscript bar (or overline) in [the formula] by which was meant "the nth smoothed value of the time derivative of a radius R". Without the smoothing function indicated by the bar, the program treated normal minor variations of velocity as if they were serious, causing spurious corrections that sent the rocket off course. It was then destroyed by the Range Safety Officer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner_1

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#16

Post by smackfu »

unwind wrote: post #3

Clearly, section 3.2.1 is the most important part: All dimensions are in millimeters. All angular dimensions are in degrees Implementors in non-metric countries, take note. Nothing is more annoying than arriving at a place where you might want to use your docking interface, only to find out it doesn't work. :)

I think you would notice if you built a dock confusing inches for millimeters.

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#18

Post by drivebyacct2 »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #5
dexen wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nothing is more annoying than arriving at a place (...) to find out it doesn't work. :) Which has sort-of happened already in history of space exploration, when Mars Climate Orbiter mis-handled Mars orbitial insertion and was lost. The problem was traced down to mis-match of measurement units used in software (Newtons vs. Pound-force). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_f...

Yep happened once in 50 years of space travel. Ugh, we get it, everyone thinks they're being cute and its a way to mock US units. Yes, yes, this isn't getting incredibly tiresome.

As an American, I would prefer that the stubbornness continue to be mocked in a hope that someday we might get rid of this silly system.

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#19

Post by klickverbot »

harichinnan wrote: post #6

Mating Interface Definition.. Androgynous Docking System.. Soft Capturing..Hard Capturing.. Someone in NASA was watching porn when they wrote this.

Definitely: »The IDSS docking interface is fully androgynous about one axis, meaning the interface configuration is capable of mating to an identical configuration«

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#20

Post by wr1472 »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #12
dexen wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nothing is more annoying than arriving at a place (...) to find out it doesn't work. :) Which has sort-of happened already in history of space exploration, when Mars Climate Orbiter mis-handled Mars orbitial insertion and was lost. The problem was traced down to mis-match of measurement units used in software (Newtons vs. Pound-force). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_f...

IIRC, it was an accumulation of errors when converting between units, not a unit mis-match.

Root cause is still a unit mis-match though.
Post reply on HN