So, as usual, I had (and still have) a terminology confusion. Presumably, "androgynous docking adapter" means a single integrated adapter that can fill both active and passive roles. (Wow, I can't wait until the Language Police find this stuff.) So an AADA must be a separate component that consists of two bi-directional passive interfaces that can glue two active systems together.
[ . . . ] No matter what it does for self-assembly and/or refueling, the crew module has to dock with the passive Gateway IDA, so it must have an active, extended soft capture ring. [ . . . ]
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 03/31/2022 07:42 pmSo, as usual, I had (and still have) a terminology confusion. Presumably, "androgynous docking adapter" means a single integrated adapter that can fill both active and passive roles. (Wow, I can't wait until the Language Police find this stuff.) So an AADA must be a separate component that consists of two bi-directional passive interfaces that can glue two active systems together.No, it's the other way around. An Active/Active Docking Adapter is an adapter that has two active ports, and can thus connect two spacecrafts that only have passive mechanisms (e.g. Lunar Gateway and an HLS lander). The nomenclature is similar to how e.g. a coupler for connecting two Ethernet cables is called a female/female coupler if the coupler has two female connectors (and both cables have male connectors).The HLS lander has the option of either• have an androgynous docking mechanism,OR• have a passive docking mechanism, and bring an AADA with it.In the latter case, the lander will arrive at the Lunar Gateway with the AADA attached to itself, and thus effectively have an active docking mechanism. It docks to the Gateway, and when it leaves for the lunar surface, it leaves the AADA attached to the Gateway. The Lunar Gateway now effectively has an active docking mechanism.When the lander comes back from the Moon, it can either dock to the AADA still attached to the Gateway, or dock to Orion; both have active docking mechanisms, so the passive mechanism on the lander works for either.Quote from: TheRadicalModerate[ . . . ] No matter what it does for self-assembly and/or refueling, the crew module has to dock with the passive Gateway IDA, so it must have an active, extended soft capture ring. [ . . . ]Note: The Lunar Gateway will not have an IDA (International Docking Adapter). IDA is an adapter between the APAS-95 and IDSS standards, and is a specific piece of hardware used on ISS. Lunar Gateway will have an IDSS-compatible docking port, but it will not be in the form of an adapter.
I'm keeping my streak alive on misunderstanding all things docking, I see. The AADA having both sides active makes a lot more sense.More questions, though:1) Would the lander dock actively to the Gateway, then leave the AADA on the Gateway's port during the surface mission? That would imply the following:a) They'd be saving a lot of mass for the NRHO-LS-NRHO leg of the mission (good).b) They'd be in a position to immediately dock with the Orion if there's a problem (good).c) Docking back at the Gateway would be weird. Do you know if a vehicle with a passive ring can act as the "chaser" rather than the "target" in an RPOD?d) After a docking failure, failure to jettison the AADA from the Gateway would be double-plus ungood.
2) Alternatively, the lander could carry the AADA permanently, only jettisoning it in the contingency where direct docking with the Orion was necessary. That also has some implications:a) It's heavy (bad). Can the AADA save weight by not populating the retraction arms, magnets, and soft latches on the lander side? Does this have implications for jettisoning it if the lander needs to dock with the Orion?b) Presumably, the reason that the lander would be docking with the Orion is because something bad happened with the Gateway RPOD. If the RPOD failure occurs during actual docking, the probability of pranging the AADA and lander passive ring goes up substantially. That in turn would increase the odds of a jettison failure (bad).
3) I'd assume that all of the Option A competitors have already planned for an active IDSS implementation, so rolling back to a fixed passive IDSS ring would seem weird.4) Has an AADA actually been implemented yet? I can't think of any instance where it would have been used.Given that, I think my conclusion still stands, even though the reasoning by which I reached it was 100% wrong: I'd expect everybody to bite the bullet and fully implement IDSS androgyny.
I haven't studied the intricacies of IDSS, but from a mechanical point of view, it doesn't matter which side performs the maneuvers; it is the relative motions that matter. What I imagine could matter, is targeting. If e.g. the standard says the passive side shall have some optical target pattern, and the active side have cameras/detectors/whatever looking for that target, then it might be that the HLS vendor needs to implement those on both the lander itself and on the AADA.
There probably is no need to jettison the adapter from the Lunar Gateway. The next lander coming, will either have a passive-only docking mechanism, and thus needs an adapter anyway, or have an androgynous mechanism, and can then deal with active mechanism of the adapter (as long as the adapter has whatever is needed for targeting).
Also, it is not enough to just jettison the adapter; it needs to be disposed of. Else it would effectively turn into a large piece of uncontrolled debris floating around the Lunar Gateway, and posing a risk to the Gateway and everything in its vincinity, including arriving and departing Orions, HLS landers, and GLS supply ships.
Timeline• 3/31/22 Draft Solicitation issued as a Request for Information (RFI)• 4/04/22 Industry Day• 4/06/22 Begin Industry one-on-ones• Summer 2022 Final Solicitation Issued• 60 Days after Final Solicitation Proposal Due• 1/31/2023 Anticipated Contract Award
Americans will return to the Moon in 2024. Following this 2024 landing, we will develop a sustained, strategic presence at the lunar South Pole called the Artemis Base Camp. Our activities at the Artemis Base Camp over the next decade will pave the way for long-term economic and scientific activity at the Moon, as well as for the first human mission to Mars in the 2030s.
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638
Bridenstine's comments don't hold any value on this matter anymore. He is paid to say things to benefit the companies he works for, and also trying to get back into politics (running for office).
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638Bridenstine's comments don't hold any value on this matter anymore. He is paid to say things to benefit the companies he works for, and also trying to get back into politics (running for office).
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.So who is he talking about?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/05/2022 08:53 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.So who is he talking about?Voyager Space and Sierra Space are involved in the Dynetics lander and both raised money from private markets. Bridenstine is on the board of Voyager Space.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/06/2022 01:12 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/05/2022 08:53 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1511406869985861638Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.So who is he talking about?Voyager Space and Sierra Space are involved in the Dynetics lander and both raised money from private markets. Bridenstine is on the board of Voyager Space.Not only this, but ALL of his public comments are now seen through the lense that his opinion is for sale. He cannot/will not say anything that is detrimental to any of his financial interests now.
Quote from: deadman1204 on 04/06/2022 01:48 amQuote from: yg1968 on 04/06/2022 01:12 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/05/2022 08:53 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:{tweet removed to conserve space}Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.So who is he talking about?Voyager Space and Sierra Space are involved in the Dynetics lander and both raised money from private markets. Bridenstine is on the board of Voyager Space.Not only this, but ALL of his public comments are now seen through the lense that his opinion is for sale. He cannot/will not say anything that is detrimental to any of his financial interests now.Right but that is also true of Elon Musk and people listen to Musk's ideas for space.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/06/2022 01:12 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 04/05/2022 08:53 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:{tweet removed to conserve space}Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.So who is he talking about?Voyager Space and Sierra Space are involved in the Dynetics lander and both raised money from private markets. Bridenstine is on the board of Voyager Space.Not only this, but ALL of his public comments are now seen through the lense that his opinion is for sale. He cannot/will not say anything that is detrimental to any of his financial interests now.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/05/2022 08:53 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:{tweet removed to conserve space}Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.So who is he talking about?Voyager Space and Sierra Space are involved in the Dynetics lander and both raised money from private markets. Bridenstine is on the board of Voyager Space.
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:{tweet removed to conserve space}Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.So who is he talking about?
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:{tweet removed to conserve space}
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/05/2022 08:53 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:{tweet removed}Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.So who is he talking about?What makes you think SpaceX have not raised private money?
Quote from: yg1968 on 04/05/2022 07:53 pmJim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:{tweet removed}Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?Not SpaceX. Not Blue Origin. Unlikely Dynetics would, since they are a division of Leidos, a public company. Nor Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman, who are both public companies.So who is he talking about?
Jim Bridenstine chimes in the second lander debate:{tweet removed}
Who specifically is "raising money from private markets" for HLS?