Universal berthing Mechanism

[lamontagne]

The Nexus Aurora group proposed at the 2021 Dubai IAC conference a new Berthing port design, the Universal Berthing Mechanism.
The intent was to create a larger berthing system to replace the present smaller ports, mostly for space station assembly.  And to have the project open source.

The abstract:
With the growing demand for orbital stations on the horizon, standardization of common elements will
assist in lowering cost and increasing access to more industries. Few components require standardisation
more than the berthing port. Many of current berthing port designs are hidden behind proprietary designs
and information, limiting access to valuable information to allow for compatibility across various systems.
The authors define the Uniform Berthing Mechanism (UBM) standard, that could be manufactured by
any player in this arena. The UBM standard will allow commonality between any orbital infrastructure
with this standard while lowering cost with an open source design and guidelines. The paper aims
to outline guidelines to manufacturing process ideas and limitations of use. It also describes typology
architecture for flexible combinations of different elements: multifunctional pressurised volumes for people,
docking systems, solar panels, radiation panels, ECLSS, storage and manufacture add-ons.
The paper will also attempt to envision future expansions to space stations and look at how the UBM
could assist in expandability.

Docking would require an adapter or substantial modifications.

A search on the NASASpaceflight site doesn't turn up any references to it, so I thought it might be an interesting topic for discussion.
And since the idea of Nexus Aurora was to define an open standard, the widest possible diffusion seem a logical step

https://nexusaurora.org/projects/ubm/

[jstrotha0975]

I've been saying for years the Aerospace industry needs a universal docking port.

[Jim]

I've been saying for years the Aerospace industry needs a universal docking port.

it has one, see IDSS

[lamontagne]

I've been saying for years the Aerospace industry needs a universal docking port.

Well this isn't it :-)  It's a berthing port, so really mostly for assembly rather than temporary attachment of a vehicle.  I guess it would need to be usable for temporarily attaching cargo vehicles...

[volker2020]

IDSS features a 80cm wide opening, which is a serious limitation, to transfer cargo. UBSS overs up to 2m.

see:

[Jim]

IDSS features a 80cm wide opening, which is a serious limitation, to transfer cargo. UBSS overs up to 2m.

see:

UBSS is for berthing and not docking

[DanClemmensen]

I've been saying for years the Aerospace industry needs a universal docking port.

it has one, see IDSS

IDSS solves basically all current needs, but it has constraints. As I understand it, IDSS has two problems:

First, it's too small for some applications. This constraint will be increasingly more of a problem as spacecraft get larger.

Second, not all IDSS implementations are compatible. The standard allows for active-only, passive-only, and active/passive implementations. Actual docking requires that one side be active and the other side be passive. Thus two active-only ports (Crew Dragon, Starliner, Orion)  cannot dock with each other. This is justified because there are no missions that would require such docking, but that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[lamontagne]

IDSS features a 80cm wide opening, which is a serious limitation, to transfer cargo. UBSS overs up to 2m.

see:

UBSS is for berthing and not docking

Indeed.  One of the problems we had with the existing CBM was that it was non androgynous.  This made ship to ship mating impossible in future applications, and eventually made a problem for ring type stations.  Canadarm 3 or a similar system with a socket type design mitigates the difficulty of requiring an arm to berth the vehicle(s).

[lamontagne]

We felt the form factor was more practical for future surface assemblies on the Moon and Mars as well.

There is still a need for a rapid docking port for surface vehicles, but that's a different problem.

[Coastal Ron]

We felt the form factor was more practical for future surface assemblies on the Moon and Mars as well.

There is still a need for a rapid docking port for surface vehicles, but that's a different problem.

I'm hoping that this current version could be upsized to something a little larger, because for artificial gravity stations the 2m height would be too small.

For instance, about 1% of the male population on Earth is 195.6 centimeters, but in a low gravity environment (Mars level) that might actually end up being a larger percentage due to human body stretching. Then there is clearance height, shoe height, hats (some people like to wear hats everywhere) and so on, which make 2m not quite big enough for 100% of the potential population.

So could this current design be upscaled to provide an opening 2.5m x 2.5m?

But otherwise this is GREAT WORK!

[jimvela]

I'm hoping that this current version could be upsized to something a little larger, because for artificial gravity stations the 2m height would be too small.

Most humans do not have anything near a 2m diameter torso ... why would you need a 2.5m opening to float through?

[whitelancer64]

I'm hoping that this current version could be upsized to something a little larger, because for artificial gravity stations the 2m height would be too small.

Most humans do not have anything near a 2m diameter torso ... why would you need a 2.5m opening to float through?

To walk through.

The paper explicitly says (and there's even a diagram) that this standard could be used to connect a ring of modules for a rotating space station.

The standard could also be used to connect modules of a Mars or Moon surface base.

[lamontagne]

We felt the form factor was more practical for future surface assemblies on the Moon and Mars as well.

There is still a need for a rapid docking port for surface vehicles, but that's a different problem.

I'm hoping that this current version could be upsized to something a little larger, because for artificial gravity stations the 2m height would be too small.

For instance, about 1% of the male population on Earth is 195.6 centimeters, but in a low gravity environment (Mars level) that might actually end up being a larger percentage due to human body stretching. Then there is clearance height, shoe height, hats (some people like to wear hats everywhere) and so on, which make 2m not quite big enough for 100% of the potential population.

So could this current design be upscaled to provide an opening 2.5m x 2.5m?

But otherwise this is GREAT WORK!

Glad you liked it.  The team is active on Discord and Reddit and is presenting again this year at IAC. 
A standard door in Canada and the US is 80 inches or 204 cm. 210 cm might be doable, with the same outer ring of 3m, but the number of services would be a little bit restricted.  Would that be future proof?

Regarding the change in height of Martians, the question would be will it change faster than the obsolescence of the structure?  I expect the first generation of Martian or Lunar habitats will become rapidly obsolete for any number of reasons. 
However, this reminds me of my grandfather's house in Framlingham, England, that had a very low door indeed, towards the old kitchen.  The house was called 'The Ancient House' though.  Grandpa had rigged a pressure sensitive mat that lit up a sign: Mind your head!

[Coastal Ron]

...
So could this current design be upscaled to provide an opening 2.5m x 2.5m?

But otherwise this is GREAT WORK!

Glad you liked it.  The team is active on Discord and Reddit and is presenting again this year at IAC. 
A standard door in Canada and the US is 80 inches or 204 cm. 210 cm might be doable, with the same outer ring of 3m, but the number of services would be a little bit restricted.  Would that be future proof?

The rotating space station application I have in mind uses 8m diameter modules, so the outer ring could grow in diameter.

Regarding the change in height of Martians...

My bad, I wasn't implying using this on Mars (though I'm sure it could), but on a rotating space station that is providing Mars-level gravity.

And because of the low gravity people could be bouncing more too, so there are a number of factors that would benefit from having a slightly larger opening. Say a 3.5m outer ring, with a 2.5m square opening?

[lamontagne]

...
So could this current design be upscaled to provide an opening 2.5m x 2.5m?

But otherwise this is GREAT WORK!

Glad you liked it.  The team is active on Discord and Reddit and is presenting again this year at IAC. 
A standard door in Canada and the US is 80 inches or 204 cm. 210 cm might be doable, with the same outer ring of 3m, but the number of services would be a little bit restricted.  Would that be future proof?

The rotating space station application I have in mind uses 8m diameter modules, so the outer ring could grow in diameter.

Regarding the change in height of Martians...

My bad, I wasn't implying using this on Mars (though I'm sure it could), but on a rotating space station that is providing Mars-level gravity.

And because of the low gravity people could be bouncing more too, so there are a number of factors that would benefit from having a slightly larger opening. Say a 3.5m outer ring, with a 2.5m square opening?

Don't see why not.  There was a wish to fit three of these into the end of a 8m module, that kind of defined the 2m dimension.  I guess if there was a complete functional analysis done to identify the need, a 2.5m hatch might work as well.
The principle given in the design can certainly be used for a larger design.  It's a very flexible system.

The 8m module was the Orbital Can, a fairly horrible name but another nice design by Nexus Aurora.

https://nexusaurora.org/projects/ocs/

If you are interested in the question of Martian gravity walking, there are some papers on the subject. The key work is gait.
In summary, you start bouncing only if you try to walk fast.  On the Moon you start bouncing almost right away.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3327825/

and
https://nexusaurora.org/projects/evacuation-in-terms-of-reduced-gravity/

[edzieba]

A cheap hack for gaining 'headroom' for walk-through use would be to orient the opening at 45°. That gives you the ~2.8m (with clipping for the 'squircle' shape) vertical height, at the expense of only comfortably accommodating one person passing through at a time, and requiring a raised walkway to minimise shin-bashing from stepping over the angled lip.

[Asteroza]

what ever happened to the docking/berthing design one of the SABRE researchers (Hemphill?) was working on as ancillary work for Skylon?

[lamontagne]

what ever happened to the docking/berthing design one of the SABRE researchers (Hemphill?) was working on as ancillary work for Skylon?

It went away with the rest of Skylon, leaving only the Sabre engine.  It was smaller and it was proprietary so not in line with this open concept.  But it was on the side table of some of the designers of the UBS.  I guess someone with contacts in the British aerospace Industry might be more aware of the details.

[lamontagne]

A cheap hack for gaining 'headroom' for walk-through use would be to orient the opening at 45°. That gives you the ~2.8m (with clipping for the 'squircle' shape) vertical height, at the expense of only comfortably accommodating one person passing through at a time, and requiring a raised walkway to minimise shin-bashing from stepping over the angled lip.

As the port is not an active part of the connecting system, the actual berthing system is the ring, you might be able to change the port proportions while maintaining the standard.  It would be an interesting exercise for a designer to look into this kind of variation.  A pretty obvious subcomponent would be a docking port addition, probably with an IDSS connector, for docking in space.

[lamontagne]

One of the objectives of the port design was to allow for large cooling systems and high power cables to pass through the port.  Any substantial station will require a lot of power for life support. 
The design allows for one MW of electrical power at 240V, probably DC and 500 kW of cooling through the port, with conservative assumptions and full redundancy.  Higher voltages would allow higher power loads.  This power would be for a 5 to 10 8m Starship modules depending on their function and the distribution of the life support systems, in particular electrolytic oxygen generators.  Standard connectors already exist for this type of electrical load.  The use of cutouts rather than connectors in the ports would allow the use of pass through cables for permanent connections, and reduce the constraints of the standard.