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

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#21

Post by InclinedPlane »

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.

Not exactly, ultimately it was just that. The problem was that there was a spec for a file format for data from the spacecraft that was supposed to be in metric units, but some of the data was in imperial units, against the spec. This resulted in a course deviation which ultimately doomed the spacecraft. That said, there were warning signs that something was wrong which the ops team didn't pick up on but should have.

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#22

Post by qntm »

> Vehicles using this interface may include light vehicles in the range of 5-8K kg, and medium vehicles in the range of 8-25K kg. These vehicles will dock to each other, to large space complexes in the range of 100-375K kg, and to large earth departure stages in the range of 33-170K kg.

I've never seen "K kg" stand for metric tonnes before. Two Ks of different cases both standing for "kilo-" therefore meaning "kilokilogram"? At first I thought "five kilograms is quite small for a spaceship" and then I had to re-read it. To say nothing of the fact that "K" means Kelvin, not kilo-.

On the other hand, what are the other options? "Mg" for "megagram"?

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#23

Post by forza »

smithian wrote: post #11

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…

Correct. But the manned Dragon spacecraft, cleverly named DragonRider, will use this interface.

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#24

Post by lostlogin »

qntm wrote: post #22

> Vehicles using this interface may include light vehicles in the range of 5-8K kg, and medium vehicles in the range of 8-25K kg. These vehicles will dock to each other, to large space complexes in the range of 100-375K kg, and to large earth departure stages in the range of 33-170K kg. I've never seen "K kg" stand for metric tonnes before. Two Ks of different cases both standing for "kilo-" therefore meaning "kiloki…

Good spotting, I assumed a typo and skimmed on. I was imagining some kind of unknown-to-me efficiency in super light space ships..

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#25

Post by smackfu »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #15

Is it just me or does this docking design look overly complex and easily damaged by a docking miss? I am partial to designs with as few moving parts as possible. Maybe I am nieve to the needs of space docking too.

Actually, this is intentionally a low impact design, to avoid the following problems with the old "ram into each other" method:

* require substantial force and velocity for docking alignment and capture

* create critical operations

* affect structure fatigue life

* disturb zero-g environments

* difficult for small mass vehicles to use

* support a limited range of vehicle performance capabilities

So the miss you're thinking of isn't really where this is used. Also, this is an androgynous design (it can dock to itself) which makes things more complex.

(From this PDF: http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Meetings/TIM_%28Nov-17-2010%... )

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#27

Post by excuse-me »

klickverbot wrote: post #19
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«

Is that an official Nasa chat-up line ?

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#28

Post by Someone »

qntm wrote: post #22

> Vehicles using this interface may include light vehicles in the range of 5-8K kg, and medium vehicles in the range of 8-25K kg. These vehicles will dock to each other, to large space complexes in the range of 100-375K kg, and to large earth departure stages in the range of 33-170K kg. I've never seen "K kg" stand for metric tonnes before. Two Ks of different cases both standing for "kilo-" therefore meaning "kiloki…

There are (several) guidelines that abolish certain abbreviations because misinterpretation can kill, for example http://www.ismp.org/Tools/errorproneabbreviations.pdf

I cannot find a guideline w.r.t. Mg, but it can easily be confused with milligram and microgram. That may be the reason to use this weird construct ('ton' seems a better term, but it is ambiguous, too)

Re: Docking standard for the International Space Station

#29

Post by qntm »

Someone wrote: post #28
qntm wrote: post #22

> Vehicles using this interface may include light vehicles in the range of 5-8K kg, and medium vehicles in the range of 8-25K kg. These vehicles will dock to each other, to large space complexes in the range of 100-375K kg, and to large earth departure stages in the range of 33-170K kg. I've never seen "K kg" stand for metric tonnes before. Two Ks of different cases both standing for "kilo-" therefore meaning "kiloki…

There are (several) guidelines that abolish certain abbreviations because misinterpretation can kill, for example http://www.ismp.org/Tools/errorproneabbreviations.pdf I cannot find a guideline w.r.t. Mg, but it can easily be confused with milligram and microgram. That may be the reason to use this weird construct ('ton' seems a better term, but it is ambiguous, too)

"Ton" would be ambiguous, but "tonne" is unambiguously the metric tonne (1000 kilograms).
Post reply on HN