What's stopping a docking port passageway from being larger than around 0.8 meters? I heard that it was because docking ports were less rigid than berthing ports (so larger diameters would be harder to keep airtight), but I need more reasons why we can't have a passage that's 1 or even 1.3 meters in diameter.
Can the NDS act as the space side of an air lock?It may need a door.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2014 06:11 pmCan the NDS act as the space side of an air lock?It may need a door.What's the inner diameter? AIUI, astros prefer a big door with little chance of entangling.
Do CBMs aboard the ISS use some sort of sub-aperture square-with-rounded-corners internal gateway (not pressure-tight) so that people passing through don't snag the utility lines? If so, what are its dimensions?
Quote from: Burninate on 07/18/2014 05:41 amDo CBMs aboard the ISS use some sort of sub-aperture square-with-rounded-corners internal gateway (not pressure-tight) so that people passing through don't snag the utility lines? If so, what are its dimensions?There are no utility lines that pass through the CBM hatchway. Utilities are connected on the peripheral of the hatch and pass through the pressure vessel. There is a vestibule that is accessible from the interior where jumpers are installed.
Quote from: baldusi on 07/17/2014 05:46 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2014 06:11 pmCan the NDS act as the space side of an air lock?It may need a door.What's the inner diameter? AIUI, astros prefer a big door with little chance of entangling.NDS - The NASA Docking System has a passage for crew and cargo with a diameter of 685 millimetres (27.0 in), which can be increased to 813 millimetres (32.0 in) by removing the petals of the capture mechanism after mating. IMHO An outer door will probably have the petals present.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Docking_System
That's outdated info. The passthrough diameter is now 800 mm (31.5 in), the petals are no longer removable.
Seems to me there is little likelyhood that astros would want to go through a 31 inch diameter opening suited up... way too much snagability... I could be wrong but...
Quote from: Lar on 07/20/2014 01:52 pmSeems to me there is little likelyhood that astros would want to go through a 31 inch diameter opening suited up... way too much snagability... I could be wrong but...Then the astronauts will have to play a game of hunt the bigger hatch on Orion, Dragonrider, CST-100, DreamChaser and BA-330.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2014 04:56 amQuote from: baldusi on 07/17/2014 05:46 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2014 06:11 pmCan the NDS act as the space side of an air lock?It may need a door.What's the inner diameter? AIUI, astros prefer a big door with little chance of entangling.NDS - The NASA Docking System has a passage for crew and cargo with a diameter of 685 millimetres (27.0 in), which can be increased to 813 millimetres (32.0 in) by removing the petals of the capture mechanism after mating. IMHO An outer door will probably have the petals present.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Docking_SystemThat's outdated info. The passthrough diameter is now 800 mm (31.5 in), the petals are no longer removable.
Quote from: Pipcard on 07/22/2013 09:37 pmWhat's stopping a docking port passageway from being larger than around 0.8 meters? I heard that it was because docking ports were less rigid than berthing ports (so larger diameters would be harder to keep airtight), but I need more reasons why we can't have a passage that's 1 or even 1.3 meters in diameter.The Russian hybrid docking system has a passage that is 1100 mm in diameter.
Quote from: manboy on 07/19/2014 01:55 amQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2014 04:56 amQuote from: baldusi on 07/17/2014 05:46 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2014 06:11 pmCan the NDS act as the space side of an air lock?It may need a door.What's the inner diameter? AIUI, astros prefer a big door with little chance of entangling.NDS - The NASA Docking System has a passage for crew and cargo with a diameter of 685 millimetres (27.0 in), which can be increased to 813 millimetres (32.0 in) by removing the petals of the capture mechanism after mating. IMHO An outer door will probably have the petals present.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Docking_SystemThat's outdated info. The passthrough diameter is now 800 mm (31.5 in), the petals are no longer removable.Is it the case that 3 petals in a mated pair are no longer removeable, or 6 petals in a mated pair are no longer removeable?
Quote from: Danderman on 03/21/2015 11:11 amQuote from: Pipcard on 07/22/2013 09:37 pmWhat's stopping a docking port passageway from being larger than around 0.8 meters? I heard that it was because docking ports were less rigid than berthing ports (so larger diameters would be harder to keep airtight), but I need more reasons why we can't have a passage that's 1 or even 1.3 meters in diameter.The Russian hybrid docking system has a passage that is 1100 mm in diameter.Do you have a source for that? I've been working on the wikipedia page and I've been having trouble finding reliable info on the hybrid docking system.
Quote from: manboy on 03/24/2015 10:50 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/21/2015 11:11 amQuote from: Pipcard on 07/22/2013 09:37 pmWhat's stopping a docking port passageway from being larger than around 0.8 meters? I heard that it was because docking ports were less rigid than berthing ports (so larger diameters would be harder to keep airtight), but I need more reasons why we can't have a passage that's 1 or even 1.3 meters in diameter.The Russian hybrid docking system has a passage that is 1100 mm in diameter.Do you have a source for that? I've been working on the wikipedia page and I've been having trouble finding reliable info on the hybrid docking system.My sources are either NASA documents or L2 material.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23673.0The first messages in this topic contain documents concerning the Node module, and in these documents are references to the dimensions of the hybrid docking adapters used on the Node module.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/26/2015 01:16 pmhttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23673.0The first messages in this topic contain documents concerning the Node module, and in these documents are references to the dimensions of the hybrid docking adapters used on the Node module.OK, you speak about the FUTURE "hybrid" system.The "hybrid system" currently used on RS (SSVP-M) has only 1000mm diameter.http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/ssvp/tech/3/3.html
I originally posted this in the Shuttle Q&A thread but I think it's better at home here:What is the diameter of the APAS-95 structural interface ring? I know that the petal-to-petal diameter is 800 mm but what is the diameter of the structural interface ring?
The structural ring I'm talking about is the one with hooks/latches. And it's the outer diameter of this ring I'm interested in.
Quote from: DaveS on 03/27/2015 06:17 pmThe structural ring I'm talking about is the one with hooks/latches. And it's the outer diameter of this ring I'm interested in.What about the brackets? These are non-standard, and may vary from application to application.
Quote from: Nicolas PILLET on 03/26/2015 04:48 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/26/2015 01:16 pmhttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23673.0The first messages in this topic contain documents concerning the Node module, and in these documents are references to the dimensions of the hybrid docking adapters used on the Node module.OK, you speak about the FUTURE "hybrid" system.The "hybrid system" currently used on RS (SSVP-M) has only 1000mm diameter.http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/ssvp/tech/3/3.htmlUnfortunately, I cannot release any proprietary documents, but documents from the source are clear that the internal diameter of the existing hybrid system is 1100 mm.Also, MLM and Node module docking systems are compatible with existing docking systems at ISS, and therefore the "new" hybrid adapter would have the same inner diameter as the existing hybrid adapters, or else docking would be impossible. Of course, the newest hybrid hybrids that are located axially on the Node module are hybrids with an internal hatch diameter of 800 mm, but that is a special case.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/27/2015 02:12 pmQuote from: Nicolas PILLET on 03/26/2015 04:48 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/26/2015 01:16 pmhttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23673.0The first messages in this topic contain documents concerning the Node module, and in these documents are references to the dimensions of the hybrid docking adapters used on the Node module.OK, you speak about the FUTURE "hybrid" system.The "hybrid system" currently used on RS (SSVP-M) has only 1000mm diameter.http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/ssvp/tech/3/3.htmlUnfortunately, I cannot release any proprietary documents, but documents from the source are clear that the internal diameter of the existing hybrid system is 1100 mm.Also, MLM and Node module docking systems are compatible with existing docking systems at ISS, and therefore the "new" hybrid adapter would have the same inner diameter as the existing hybrid adapters, or else docking would be impossible. Of course, the newest hybrid hybrids that are located axially on the Node module are hybrids with an internal hatch diameter of 800 mm, but that is a special case.In that case I have a second question. Can you explain what's different between APAS-89 and APAS-95?
Quote from: manboy on 03/29/2015 08:03 amQuote from: Danderman on 03/27/2015 02:12 pmQuote from: Nicolas PILLET on 03/26/2015 04:48 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/26/2015 01:16 pmhttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23673.0The first messages in this topic contain documents concerning the Node module, and in these documents are references to the dimensions of the hybrid docking adapters used on the Node module.OK, you speak about the FUTURE "hybrid" system.The "hybrid system" currently used on RS (SSVP-M) has only 1000mm diameter.http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/ssvp/tech/3/3.htmlUnfortunately, I cannot release any proprietary documents, but documents from the source are clear that the internal diameter of the existing hybrid system is 1100 mm.Also, MLM and Node module docking systems are compatible with existing docking systems at ISS, and therefore the "new" hybrid adapter would have the same inner diameter as the existing hybrid adapters, or else docking would be impossible. Of course, the newest hybrid hybrids that are located axially on the Node module are hybrids with an internal hatch diameter of 800 mm, but that is a special case.In that case I have a second question. Can you explain what's different between APAS-89 and APAS-95?I used to know this, but my memory is vague.I believe that APAS-95 is almost the same as APAS-89, but some elements are "locked down" to create a completely passive system.
Shuttle used APAS-95 to be compatible with the APAS-95 on Mir, which was modified as a purely passive system.IIRC.
A BA330 module masses 20 metric tons. Can any of the current docking or berthing ports support this weight under 1g of artificial gravity?F = m a = 20,000 kg * 9.81 m/s/s = 196,200 N (or 44,108 lbf)
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/21/2015 05:43 pmA BA330 module masses 20 metric tons. Can any of the current docking or berthing ports support this weight under 1g of artificial gravity?F = m a = 20,000 kg * 9.81 m/s/s = 196,200 N (or 44,108 lbf)I think you are asking about tensile loads. For NDS/iLIDS the trans-lunar case requirement was 100,000 N.{snip}
A question. Is it possible or plausible to have a spacecraft (a capsule or an automated vehicle) that can both berth and dock on a station? For example, is it possible to design the docking door as part of the berthing door and use one or the other according to whether you dock or berth?
Quote from: Dante80 on 11/02/2015 04:51 pmA question. Is it possible or plausible to have a spacecraft (a capsule or an automated vehicle) that can both berth and dock on a station? For example, is it possible to design the docking door as part of the berthing door and use one or the other according to whether you dock or berth?Berthing just means that the spacecraft requires outside support (for the ISS it is the arm) to complete the attachment to the station, because attachment system can't handle the loads and misalignments that occur with docking. If spacecraft has a docking system can use the outside support (arm) to aid in the attachment or just dock by itself
Quote from: Jim on 11/02/2015 05:17 pmQuote from: Dante80 on 11/02/2015 04:51 pmA question. Is it possible or plausible to have a spacecraft (a capsule or an automated vehicle) that can both berth and dock on a station? For example, is it possible to design the docking door as part of the berthing door and use one or the other according to whether you dock or berth?Berthing just means that the spacecraft requires outside support (for the ISS it is the arm) to complete the attachment to the station, because attachment system can't handle the loads and misalignments that occur with docking. If spacecraft has a docking system can use the outside support (arm) to aid in the attachment or just dock by itself Thanks, I know that. My thought was whether its possible for the same spaceship to berth with a station, use the larger door opening to move cargo, and then unberth and dock so that it can be used as an escape capsule.
So you wonder if a single spacecraft can use the CBM and the NDS.
whether its possible for the same spaceship to berth with a station, use the larger door opening to move cargo, and then unberth and dock so that it can be used as an escape capsule.
do [CPAs] fold or rotate out of the way once berthing is complete and are under the velcro cover, or are they removed by the astronauts after berthing?
The Dragon vehicle was captured at 5:55 AM CDT today followed by nominal berthing, vestibule outfitting and Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) Control Panel Assembly (CPA) removal.
Quote from: sdsds on 08/21/2015 06:25 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 08/21/2015 05:43 pmA BA330 module masses 20 metric tons. Can any of the current docking or berthing ports support this weight under 1g of artificial gravity?F = m a = 20,000 kg * 9.81 m/s/s = 196,200 N (or 44,108 lbf)I think you are asking about tensile loads. For NDS/iLIDS the trans-lunar case requirement was 100,000 N.{snip}Thank you. Yes it was a tensile load with some shear loading because it would be a rotating system. Since there will frequently be several additional tons the module's mass will exceed the iLIDS limits. The module would have to be held by some sort of cradle able to take the mass and the iLIDS used as a form of airlock.
Is there a difference in size or design between big berthing ports for cargo, and berthing ports intended to permanently attach new modules? And are those differences design choices or dictated by the size and mass of the attached vehicle?
Does anyone have any information on the APDS Switching System that was used on shuttle missions STS-74 and STS-88? From what I have researched, it was used to provide TM as well as C&C for the APAS'es on the Docking Module (STS-74) and ISS PMA-1 for successful docking to Mir and the FGB respecitively.
Quote from: high road on 07/18/2016 11:46 amIs there a difference in size or design between big berthing ports for cargo, and berthing ports intended to permanently attach new modules? And are those differences design choices or dictated by the size and mass of the attached vehicle?I don't know for USOS, but for Russian Segment there is a difference between Zvezda's three front ports and other Russian docking ports.On Mir, all the docking ports were SSVP type. But, after fifteen years of experience, they realized that docking ports of the large modules were enduring big efforts over the years. So, when they built Zvezda, they changed these docking ports, which became SSVP-M. It has larger hatches, but the main difference is that they can endure stronger efforts.
Quote from: DaveS on 09/12/2016 12:37 amDoes anyone have any information on the APDS Switching System that was used on shuttle missions STS-74 and STS-88? From what I have researched, it was used to provide TM as well as C&C for the APAS'es on the Docking Module (STS-74) and ISS PMA-1 for successful docking to Mir and the FGB respecitively.Are you asking about the relays in the Docking Module? AFAIK, all newer APAS require use of relays.
Your question is a little confusing because you are referencing the APAS procurement spec, which was developed after the Mir program was basically complete. So, the STS-74 mission may have used a different switch box than the ISS switching unit referenced in your document. Note that your document also references ICM, which never flew.Which reminds me, what happened to the ICM?