What's Happening at Bigelow?

[Jorge]

I agree. At 32" APAS & iLIDS are too small for much heavy duty stuff. Something else will have to be designed 'if" there is a business case.

It has; it's called CBM and is currently available on Dragon, HTV, and Cygnus spacecraft...

For CBM you need a Remote Manipulator System.

I'll bet a hybrid is already being considered.

Why would you need a hybrid when NDS can be used for both docking and berthing? All you would need is NDS but with a larger diameter.

No such thing. NDS is a spec, the spec includes the diameter, and the diameter is smaller than a CBM.

By definition, a docking system expanded to the size of CBM is no longer NDS-compliant.

You completely missed the point.

Alright, enlighten me. What's your point? And how can an "NDS but with a larger diameter" still be an NDS, when the NDS *standard* specifies the diameter?

[Comga]

If an FH is used can that mass be put in on launch as opposed to scheduling a outfitting flight?

Precisely.  The plan illustrated in "The Beginning" or whatever Bigelow's brochure was called, showed huge amounts of extra technology, like autonomous rendezvous of the support equipment vehicle, with its own ADCS and comm, plus the docking equipment and connections.  This is beyond the ISS technology, where modules are installed by astronauts.  It is much simpler if he integrates on the ground and launches it assembled.

It is the old argument, launch large integrated systems or many pieces and assemble on orbit.  The argument is moot if a sufficiently large rocket exists.  Why would we talk about assembling an Apollo mission in Earth orbit if the Saturn V was in regular operation?  (Please don't pick at the obvious parts of this that are not the case.)  If SpaceX gets the Falcon Heavy flying, why use two smaller launches for the same hardware?

[manboy]

I agree. At 32" APAS & iLIDS are too small for much heavy duty stuff. Something else will have to be designed 'if" there is a business case.

It has; it's called CBM and is currently available on Dragon, HTV, and Cygnus spacecraft...

For CBM you need a Remote Manipulator System.

I'll bet a hybrid is already being considered.

Why would you need a hybrid when NDS can be used for both docking and berthing? All you would need is NDS but with a larger diameter.

No such thing. NDS is a spec, the spec includes the diameter, and the diameter is smaller than a CBM.

By definition, a docking system expanded to the size of CBM is no longer NDS-compliant.

You completely missed the point.

Alright, enlighten me. What's your point? And how can an "NDS but with a larger diameter" still be an NDS, when the NDS *standard* specifies the diameter?

My point is that you're arguing over technicalities. You wouldn't need a CBM hybrid because you could just take NDS and change the diameter. No it wouldn't technically be NDS but you could call it "NDS Large" and keep a large portion of the design the same.

[Jorge]

I agree. At 32" APAS & iLIDS are too small for much heavy duty stuff. Something else will have to be designed 'if" there is a business case.

It has; it's called CBM and is currently available on Dragon, HTV, and Cygnus spacecraft...

For CBM you need a Remote Manipulator System.

I'll bet a hybrid is already being considered.

Why would you need a hybrid when NDS can be used for both docking and berthing? All you would need is NDS but with a larger diameter.

No such thing. NDS is a spec, the spec includes the diameter, and the diameter is smaller than a CBM.

By definition, a docking system expanded to the size of CBM is no longer NDS-compliant.

You completely missed the point.

Alright, enlighten me. What's your point? And how can an "NDS but with a larger diameter" still be an NDS, when the NDS *standard* specifies the diameter?

My point is that you're arguing over technicalities.

NDS is a technical standard.

You wouldn't need a CBM hybrid because you could just take NDS and change the diameter. No it wouldn't technically be NDS but you could call it "NDS Large" and keep a large portion of the design the same.

For loose definitions of the word "large", anyway. Scaling has effects that ripple through the design.

And in any case, it's not proper to call it NDS once you do that. The name NDS implies compliance with a technical standard. What you're proposing is not "NDS", it's "a non-standard docking interface that may or may not share some design heritage with NDS".

[manboy]

You are a very frustrating person to talk to.

EDIT:  A larger diameter version of NDS would have a design heritage with NDS, I'm not going to argue this point.

I know that NDS is a specific diameter. What do I have to say to make you understand I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

[A_M_Swallow]

For loose definitions of the word "large", anyway. Scaling has effects that ripple through the design.

And in any case, it's not proper to call it NDS once you do that. The name NDS implies compliance with a technical standard. What you're proposing is not "NDS", it's "a non-standard docking interface that may or may not share some design heritage with NDS".

So write a proposal for NDS 2.0

[Jorge]

You are a very frustrating person to talk to.

Ditto.

EDIT:  A larger diameter version of NDS would have a design heritage with NDS, I'm not going to argue this point.

I know that NDS is a specific diameter. What do I have to say to make you understand I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

I understood from the beginning. Just stop freaking calling it NDS. NDS is not a generic term for "docking system".

[manboy]

EDIT:  A larger diameter version of NDS would have a design heritage with NDS, I'm not going to argue this point.

I know that NDS is a specific diameter. What do I have to say to make you understand I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

I understood from the beginning. Just stop freaking calling it NDS. NDS is not a generic term for "docking system".

I'm not talking about the Gemini docking system, the old Russian drogue and probe, the new Russian drogue and probe, the American drogue and probe, APAS-75, APAS-89 or APAS-95. I'm talking about a larger version of NDS. If we were talking about a scaled up version of a 787 than of course the new plane wouldn't be called a 787 but you just seem to be stuck on that and unable to talk about the concept.

[Jorge]

EDIT:  A larger diameter version of NDS would have a design heritage with NDS, I'm not going to argue this point.

I know that NDS is a specific diameter. What do I have to say to make you understand I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

I understood from the beginning. Just stop freaking calling it NDS. NDS is not a generic term for "docking system".

I'm not talking about the Gemini docking system, the old Russian drogue and probe, the new Russian drogue and probe, the American drogue and probe, APAS-75, APAS-89 or APAS-95. I'm talking about a larger version of NDS. If we were talking about a scaled up version of a 787 than of course the new plane wouldn't be called a 787 but you just seem to be stuck on that and unable to talk about the concept.

I can talk the concept. I also understand that once a mechanism is modified so that it's not mechanically compatible (as you're proposing), it's not a good idea to keep the same name.

[manboy]

EDIT:  A larger diameter version of NDS would have a design heritage with NDS, I'm not going to argue this point.

I know that NDS is a specific diameter. What do I have to say to make you understand I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

I understood from the beginning. Just stop freaking calling it NDS. NDS is not a generic term for "docking system".

I'm not talking about the Gemini docking system, the old Russian drogue and probe, the new Russian drogue and probe, the American drogue and probe, APAS-75, APAS-89 or APAS-95. I'm talking about a larger version of NDS. If we were talking about a scaled up version of a 787 than of course the new plane wouldn't be called a 787 but you just seem to be stuck on that and unable to talk about the concept.

I can talk the concept. I also understand that once a mechanism is modified so that it's not mechanically compatible (as you're proposing), it's not a good idea to keep the same name.

I never said they would be compatible.

You wouldn't keep the same name, but for the purpose of the conversation you would just call it a scaled up NDS or "NDS but with a larger diameter". You don't have to come up with a unique name just to talk about the concept.

[Jorge]

EDIT:  A larger diameter version of NDS would have a design heritage with NDS, I'm not going to argue this point.

I know that NDS is a specific diameter. What do I have to say to make you understand I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

I understood from the beginning. Just stop freaking calling it NDS. NDS is not a generic term for "docking system".

I'm not talking about the Gemini docking system, the old Russian drogue and probe, the new Russian drogue and probe, the American drogue and probe, APAS-75, APAS-89 or APAS-95. I'm talking about a larger version of NDS. If we were talking about a scaled up version of a 787 than of course the new plane wouldn't be called a 787 but you just seem to be stuck on that and unable to talk about the concept.

I can talk the concept. I also understand that once a mechanism is modified so that it's not mechanically compatible (as you're proposing), it's not a good idea to keep the same name.

I never said they would be compatible.

You wouldn't keep the same name, but for the purpose of the conversation you would just call it a scaled up NDS or "NDS but with a larger diameter". You don't have to come up with a unique name just to talk about the concept.

How about just calling it a "docking system"?

[manboy]

EDIT:  A larger diameter version of NDS would have a design heritage with NDS, I'm not going to argue this point.

I know that NDS is a specific diameter. What do I have to say to make you understand I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

I understood from the beginning. Just stop freaking calling it NDS. NDS is not a generic term for "docking system".

I'm not talking about the Gemini docking system, the old Russian drogue and probe, the new Russian drogue and probe, the American drogue and probe, APAS-75, APAS-89 or APAS-95. I'm talking about a larger version of NDS. If we were talking about a scaled up version of a 787 than of course the new plane wouldn't be called a 787 but you just seem to be stuck on that and unable to talk about the concept.

I can talk the concept. I also understand that once a mechanism is modified so that it's not mechanically compatible (as you're proposing), it's not a good idea to keep the same name.

I never said they would be compatible.

You wouldn't keep the same name, but for the purpose of the conversation you would just call it a scaled up NDS or "NDS but with a larger diameter". You don't have to come up with a unique name just to talk about the concept.

How about just calling it a "docking system"?

Because

I'm not talking about the Gemini docking system, the old Russian drogue and probe, the new Russian drogue and probe, the American drogue and probe, APAS-75, APAS-89 or APAS-95. I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

EDIT: Maybe you don't realize how different these systems are from one another and that's what you're getting hung up on?

[Jorge]

EDIT:  A larger diameter version of NDS would have a design heritage with NDS, I'm not going to argue this point.

I know that NDS is a specific diameter. What do I have to say to make you understand I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

I understood from the beginning. Just stop freaking calling it NDS. NDS is not a generic term for "docking system".

I'm not talking about the Gemini docking system, the old Russian drogue and probe, the new Russian drogue and probe, the American drogue and probe, APAS-75, APAS-89 or APAS-95. I'm talking about a larger version of NDS. If we were talking about a scaled up version of a 787 than of course the new plane wouldn't be called a 787 but you just seem to be stuck on that and unable to talk about the concept.

I can talk the concept. I also understand that once a mechanism is modified so that it's not mechanically compatible (as you're proposing), it's not a good idea to keep the same name.

I never said they would be compatible.

You wouldn't keep the same name, but for the purpose of the conversation you would just call it a scaled up NDS or "NDS but with a larger diameter". You don't have to come up with a unique name just to talk about the concept.

How about just calling it a "docking system"?

Because

I'm not talking about the Gemini docking system, the old Russian drogue and probe, the new Russian drogue and probe, the American drogue and probe, APAS-75, APAS-89 or APAS-95. I'm talking about a larger version of NDS.

EDIT: Maybe you don't realize how different these systems are from one another and that's what you're getting hung up on?

Sigh. Of course I realize how different they are. I've only been doing this for a living since Shuttle-Mir started in 1992. Maybe you don't realize all those systems except the various APAS systems have different names *for a reason*? The fact that some of the APAS systems are mechanically compatible with each other while some aren't is a pain in the butt. NASA tolerated that for APAS because they're Russian systems, they created them, they had the right to name them, and if NASA used different names for them it would just create even more confusion.

NASA's intent with NDS is to produce a single, mechanically compatible docking system. So hopefully you should understand that for Bigelow to develop an incompatible system and call it "NDS" would defeat the purpose. The "Kleenex-ification" of the NDS term would be a bad thing.

[Geron]

Does anybody think that BEAM will be one of the demonstrations selected for funding tommorrow or later on this week?

I guess its not quite enough money to see the thing all the way through but if it got awards every year for a few years then maybe we could see the inflatable addition to ISS by 2015.

[manboy]

Sigh. Of course I realize how different they are. I've only been doing this for a living since Shuttle-Mir started in 1992. Maybe you don't realize all those systems except the various APAS systems have different names *for a reason*? The fact that some of the APAS systems are mechanically compatible with each other while some aren't is a pain in the butt. NASA tolerated that for APAS because they're Russian systems, they created them, they had the right to name them, and if NASA used different names for them it would just create even more confusion.

NASA's intent with NDS is to produce a single, mechanically compatible docking system. So hopefully you should understand that for Bigelow to develop an incompatible system and call it "NDS" would defeat the purpose. The "Kleenex-ification" of the NDS term would be a bad thing.

You wouldn't call this new docking system "NDS" but you would borrow pieces of the NDS design (low impact dockings, electromagnets, the guide pedals, data transfer cable connections...) and incorporate it into this new, larger design. I'm not saying NASA or Bigelow should do this or should it replace the current sized NDS.

But it could be used replace the CBM (to allow the transfer of physically large payloads between a cargo vehicle and space station) because it would give the larger diameter without the use of an RMS.

[Chris Bergin]

Needs a new thread. Locking (not deleting) and will start the new one soon.