Docking standard for the International Space Station

http://internationaldockingstandard.com/

by forza • 14 years ago

75 28 14 years ago

internationaldockingstandard.com

gklitt• 14 years ago

It'll be fun watching the Dragon docking live while following along with this document.

unwind• 14 years ago

Clearly, section 3.2.1 is the most important part:

All dimensions are in millimeters. All angular dimensions are in degrees

Implementors in non-metric countries, take note. Nothing is more annoying than arriving at a place where you might want to use your docking interface, only to find out it doesn't work. :)

dexen• 14 years ago

>Nothing is more annoying than arriving at a place (...) to find out it doesn't work. :)

Which has sort-of happened already in history of space exploration, when Mars Climate Orbiter mis-handled Mars orbitial insertion and was lost. The problem was traced down to mis-match of measurement units used in software (Newtons vs. Pound-force).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter#Cause_of_f...

drzaiusapelord• 14 years ago

Yep happened once in 50 years of space travel.

Ugh, we get it, everyone thinks they're being cute and its a way to mock US units. Yes, yes, this isn't getting incredibly tiresome.

jimktrains22• 14 years ago

IIRC, it was an accumulation of errors when converting between units, not a unit mis-match.

_delirium• 14 years ago

Implementers in metric countries need to take note as well, since the degree is not the SI unit for angular dimension.

smackfu2• 14 years ago

I think you would notice if you built a dock confusing inches for millimeters.

harichinnan• 14 years ago

Mating Interface Definition.. Androgynous Docking System.. Soft Capturing..Hard Capturing.. Someone in NASA was watching porn when they wrote this.

klickverbot• 14 years ago

Definitely: »The IDSS docking interface is fully androgynous about one axis, meaning the interface configuration is capable of mating to an identical configuration«

excuse-me• 14 years ago

Is that an official Nasa chat-up line ?

nilaykumar• 14 years ago

We're living the future, guys.

jallmann• 14 years ago

That's refreshing -- we're sending things into space from a readable 31-page spec (with pictures!). RFC authors, take note.

jimktrains22• 14 years ago

31-page spec for the door;)

smithian• 14 years ago

This is not actually the interface that is used on the Dragon. This is a docking mechanism, which allows autonomous connections between two spacecraft. The Dragon uses the Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) which requires assistance from a manipulator arm to mate the two spacecraft.

One of the reasons the CBM was chosen for the resupply ships (including Dragon) is that the CBM has a larger inside diameter and so larger pieces of equipment (such as standard equipment racks) can be delivered through it, while the docking connectors cannot pass them.

forza• 14 years ago

Correct. But the manned Dragon spacecraft, cleverly named DragonRider, will use this interface.

fasteddie31003• 14 years ago

Is it just me or does this docking design look overly complex and easily damaged by a docking miss? I am partial to designs with as few moving parts as possible. Maybe I am nieve to the needs of space docking too.

smackfu2• 14 years ago

Actually, this is intentionally a low impact design, to avoid the following problems with the old "ram into each other" method:

* require substantial force and velocity for docking alignment and capture

* create critical operations

* affect structure fatigue life

* disturb zero-g environments

* difficult for small mass vehicles to use

* support a limited range of vehicle performance capabilities

So the miss you're thinking of isn't really where this is used. Also, this is an androgynous design (it can dock to itself) which makes things more complex.

(From this PDF: http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Meetings/TIM_%28Nov-17-2010%... )

sharkweek• 14 years ago

I don't want to be the immature one here -- but I can't help but feel there is a "yo momma" joke in there somewhere

qntm2• 14 years ago

> Vehicles using this interface may include light vehicles in the range of 5-8K kg, and medium vehicles in the range of 8-25K kg. These vehicles will dock to each other, to large space complexes in the range of 100-375K kg, and to large earth departure stages in the range of 33-170K kg.

I've never seen "K kg" stand for metric tonnes before. Two Ks of different cases both standing for "kilo-" therefore meaning "kilokilogram"? At first I thought "five kilograms is quite small for a spaceship" and then I had to re-read it. To say nothing of the fact that "K" means Kelvin, not kilo-.

On the other hand, what are the other options? "Mg" for "megagram"?

lostlogin• 14 years ago

Good spotting, I assumed a typo and skimmed on. I was imagining some kind of unknown-to-me efficiency in super light space ships..

Someone• 14 years ago

There are (several) guidelines that abolish certain abbreviations because misinterpretation can kill, for example http://www.ismp.org/Tools/errorproneabbreviations.pdf

I cannot find a guideline w.r.t. Mg, but it can easily be confused with milligram and microgram. That may be the reason to use this weird construct ('ton' seems a better term, but it is ambiguous, too)

qntm2• 14 years ago

"Ton" would be ambiguous, but "tonne" is unambiguously the metric tonne (1000 kilograms).

jluxenberg• 14 years ago

I think this is the protocol that Dragon is following on the current mission:

http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/design_lib/SSP50235.ISSvehicle...

Docking standard for the International Space Station

Related Stories