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 IMHO An outer door will probably have the petals present.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Docking_SystemThat's outdated info.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: 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 IMHO An outer door will probably have the petals present.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Docking_SystemThat's outdated info.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: 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
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.
Can the NDS act as the space side of an air lock?It may need a door.
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.
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.
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.