"that is because of legacy decisions, and it will take more than the occasional bumped head to justify changing out such a large chunk of hardware." Sounds like every meeting within IT
More like IT explaining to the director of a company why we have to keep the current networking equipment in place because if we switched everything out all at once we'd have a massive downtime that would affect company production.
This makes me appreciate that the docking ports in KSP are simple, just align the spacecraft with the docking port you’re trying to dock to, move to it slowly and it will pull you to a successful dock. It’s never that simple in real life.
You may be interested to know that the new IDS docking ports are kind of like this - the docking ring with the petals that extends out from the main docking port can actually move over quite a large range of motion, so in the leadup to docking the docking ring will actually move towards the other one, and then pull both spacecraft together
Does the possibility of the unused section coming into use mean that the ISS may need additional storage space added? Imagine, the first module added in years; a closet.
@@deathpony698 I think the BEAM's mission time has been extended for that very reason... Russia is planning to launch its Nauka module.... some time.... and that should provide at least some extra storage space... hopefully.
@dxkaiyuan: Sorry if you see a random downvote (I don't know if YT notifications shows them) They put the "View Replies" button right next to the "Downvote" button, and I accidentally clicked downvote. I removed it though. Have an upvote just in case. ☺
It goes back to the inherent asymmetry of the Cold War. The Eastern Bloc was the USSR plus its much smaller and less powerful satellites (eg China and the USSR could not coexist in the Bloc for long). The Western Bloc, by contrast, included large industrial states like Japan, France, the UK, and West Germany, which collectively had more people and money than the US for most of the period. So when the US planned Space Station Freedom, it included provision for major European and Japanese contributions, because they had large and sophisticated aerospace industries of their own; whereas the Soviet-planned Mir 2 was a purely Soviet project. Hence when merged, it was a merger of a national project with an international one.
In the first renderings of the PMA (option 1 option 4 ~8:25 in your video), it seems apparent that the offset is to avoid the truss structure in both images. This now becomes grandfathered in, so on. Thanks yet again for a great video, Scott!
5:02 To my eyes, the kink allowed the windows on the top of the shuttle to view the docking adapter. "The two overhead windows ... provide rendezvous [and] docking ... viewing" from NASA's "Forward Fuselage and Crew Compartment Windows." Useful for people who mistrust cameras.
if there's one thing that i've learned lately from this channel, is that i dont want to learn how to design space stuff. but, this has come with drastically increased respect for people who just,,, do this stuff.
@@Mike-oz4cv Even a house framer uses lots of math there are even special calculators for construction The fun part about engineering is that you get to solve the problems and leave the hard work for somebody else unless of course you're a fabricator or work in a machine shop of some kind then of course you have to know about expansion rates and all kinds of stuff math is the language of the universe
It will transmit the force regardless, straight or bent. I don't think a crumple zone needs that, in fact I'd assume they'd want the crumple zone to be direct along the center line of the module so that it would absorb as much energy as possible before the shuttle flings around and smacks the side of the station. Having it offset would seem counter intuitive to that. Also having a crumple zone directing energy sideways might mean that the shuttle strikes the station end first instead side on, meaning more energy delivered to a single location instead of alongside the whole fuselage. Or perhaps it's designed to prevent that. But what do I know, I'm not as smart as the engineers who designed it, perhaps there is merit to the theory. It just doesn't seem very likely to me.
@@Greippi10 yes. However, the outer radius is smaller than the inner radius, meaning the full force would be absorbed by the hatch. "Lowering" the outer radius this way insures the force absorbed by the inner circle ridge and transmitted to the rest of the module instead of pushing the inner hatch in and creating a possible breach.
Yeah I kinda doubt they designed for the case where a shuttle was moving with relative velocity fast enough to crush metal. If you are at that point, I'm pretty sure the shear stresses along the main axis of the station would snap the station like spaghetti or at the very least shear off the big solar arrays and radiators leaving the station out of power and overheating.
Straight is more efficient, they will probably be phased out at some point with the addition of commercial modules and the new standards for the upcoming gateway station.
this video: "space technology is actually an IT professionals' coldsweat nightmare of never ending adapter chaining". for the entire video i was internally screaming about adapter chaining. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
They were so ingenious that they realized right away the flaws of the concept (economic & technical) and dropped it in favour of Soyuz for that reason almost right away. Meanwhile, the US went on to waste lives, time and money on the Shuttle.
@@Yutani_Crayven Well, not exactly. The reason why they dropped Buran and the rocket Energia was their lack of money. If money hadn't been the reason, they would at least have flown the Energia rocket.
@@slartybarfastb3648 , if we didn't have the shuttle, we would have built a different style large rocket. it's now painfully obvious to everyone in rocket development that the shuttle design was a mistake. even those pursuing reusable upper stages are dramatically changing the architecture. we would have been better off developing a lower-cost version of the Saturn V.
Mr. Manley, Your depth of knowledge, visuals, and ability to explain complex topics are always most impressive and much appreciated! Thank You for doing what you do! Please forgive me if you have already addressed this topic, but I would love to see a video or series of videos chronicling the building of the ISS from an international perspective. Just a thought... 🚀
@@kmc7355 in that sense space is actually a lot safer, You only ever have to assure your habitable spaces can withstand 1atm difference between inside and outside. And Id suspect one has more seconds of survival in vacuum than they would in the depths if a seal pops and they have to book it to another section. I honestly feel this is also why we know more about our solar system than the bottom of the ocean, Its easier to make machines that can withstand the rigors of the cosmos than thousands of meters of water.
@@filanfyretracker You are absolutely correct, which makes it such a fun career, just getting to see the varied wildlife is awesome. Oh and shipwrecks!
Interesting. I always thought the reason was much simpler and aligned to orbital mechanics: by being at a slightly lower orbit/center of mass relative to the station, it would allow incoming/departing ships to freely chase without fuel toward/away from the dock.
I've always wondered what the torque is like on those adapters, considering the size of the station and the fact that it's always rotating and occasionally getting a bump from a visiting spacecraft - especially when it's connected to another enormous craft like the space shuttle
Because first international adapter was made by two sides of Cold War in slightly rushed fashion with problematic communication between the teams and then it was accepted as standart?
That doesn't explain why the adapter on the ISS is offset instead of coaxial. The first international adapter, the one for Apollo-Soyuz was straight, not offset.
Here's a few little factoids for those interested. Although STS-74 was indeed the third shuttle visit to Mir, it was only the second to dock. Discovery performed a rendezvous and flyaround on STS-63, but Atlantis performed the first docking on STS-71, followed by STS-74. Discovery and Endeavour would only dock with Mir once each over the course of the program. Additionally, each orbiter (excluding Columbia) had its factory-built native airlock removed around the time that Shuttle-Mir was coming to an end, each being refitted with a permanent Orbiter Docking System external airlock. This is why in the non-space station missions taking place in and after the late 90s (STS-82, 85, 95, 103, 99, 125), an ODS is still installed albeit with no APAS-95. Only Endeavour on STS-89 (Shuttle-Mir) and STS-88 (ISS A.1) would fly with the Orbiter Nose->Tunnel Hatch->ODS configuration following modification. Oddly though, even after its airlock configuration was changed, Discovery flew in the later Orbiter Nose->ODS->Tunnel Hatch configuration on STS-91 (fiinal shuttle-Mir) unlike Endeavour did for her Mir visit. Additionally, the Shuttle-Mir docking module would later serve as the design basis for MRM-1 Rassvet.
As someone who plays with Lego a lot, if you are going to make a new part the more versatile the better. The mating adapter by being offset just allows more arrangements. It's a better part that one with a constant axis, whatever you use it for.
Interesting info about STS-74. This was my first space shuttle launch to see in person. Jim Halsell was the pilot on this mission and grew up in the same neighborhood as me. I had ordered mission patch shirts for this launch and I guess I overpaid because I had a personal check from Chris Hadfield. That would have been a cool souvenir to have today.
It looks like to me (and I don't have a clue!) It would be designed like that to absorb the inertia when mating up. It would be able to absorb a moving force, instead of being pushed away. the existing structure would not lose its precise orbit path. Just a guess? I like your short answer better Scott Manley! Lol👍
Hey Scott, great video! You mentioned a study to use the Soyuz as a lifeboat for Freedom and it being the first rendering of this particular design. It looks to me like in that configuration, particularly in "Option 4", the offset gave some potentially much needed clearance between the Soyuz' and the truss structure. Is it possible that was the main reason for the offset? That either these plans were serious enough they ended up largely designing it at that point already and didn't want to spend the resource to revise for the shuttle later, or perhaps saw similar uses for the ISS?
a couple different ways actually. a Soyze space craft approaching the station, a space walk using an untethered 'jet pack' that was used a few times with the shuttle, or just a normal space walk outside of the station
You finally answered the question satisfactorily for me to give a logical answer to people who ask me why! A lot seem to think that it had to do with equalization of atmosphere and pressure because of a leak! No joke!
"I'm Scott Manley," _"And you're not!"_ Hahaha...rock on dude, I love your channel man! Great information, and you break down the techy stuff really well, thank you!
Talking about the docking ports and what they were to be used for and how plans were made to use Soyuz as a life boat and the space shuttle to MIR you can kinda see how everyone went. What if one space station?
All these docking maneuvers were sped up here, but they actually were pretty accurate representations of my maneuvers in KSP. As in, fast enough to dock, slow enough to not crash.
Not trying to be political but didn't China request to be a part of the ISS and was coldly rejected by the US? So now they're working on their own station. I forgot details. Video please Mr. Manley!! (Only if it fancies you of course). Good show, this one!
IDSS (the international standard), is kinda incomplete. It could most probably mechanically dock. But the whole approach and docking might be incompatible. Not to mention the electronic protocols once connected. And material compatibility, specially the seals, is ill defined. And we don't know how stictly have they adhered to the standard.
@@baldusi So, like USB-C is technically physically compatible, but actually a bunch of wildly different incompatible standards that limit it's real use?
@@fcgHenden I think the US puts law in place preventing any interaction between NASA and China. In unlikely events perhaps something like movie Gravity can happen where you use a Shenzhou to take ISS astronauts back. Anyway everyone uses one standard is always good. (Not like EV manufacturers even in the same country)
One forgets how big a space shuttle is until you see it docked to something like Mir and it looks almost as big.(unless that is just due to photography angles)
One doesn't know how big a space shuttle is until you stand underneath Discovery's belly at the Air & Space Museum in Dulles VA. The answer is: Enormous.
I think that astronauts should wear bump caps. Could be held on by velcro attached to a fire hood. A low mass ventilated helmet made out of UHMWPE could provide some basic level of protection against bumps and impacts. It may also provide some slight protection against certain types of radiation, perhaps slightly reducing long term exposure. Suits worn on spacecraft and stations should also have some bump and abrasion resistance built in to protect the torso, hips, knees, elbows, and shoulders in a similar way as some motorcycle gear. These can also use tough plastics such as UHMWPE. Both bump protection and some limited mitigation for long term radiation exposure can be combined into the same gear. For areas that require additional strength or density, some aluminum bronze components can be incorporated.
I suggested on twitter it was in case of a accident and the docking ring broke. Rapid depressurization, the angle would help stop or slow objects or persons form being ejected. I will add something else to that, the door swings up and any out rush of air would pull the door down and self seal. I think the 27" of extra clearance was not enough to justify the design as there are specs on how much clearance in the cargo bay you have for a payload that is removable.
Ekhem .... Are You aware that on almost all Shuttle missions another Shuttle was prepared on rapid standby for rescue mission? That was big talk, when Atlantis last flew, because there was no rescue standby for her.
So the ISS APAS was similar to what we flew in MIR config, but it was not exactly the same. The screws were longer, tunnel shorter, and there were some changes to the drive mechanisms. Also, while STS74 was technically the third Shuttle-Mir flight, it was only the second docking ( following STS71). STS63 was just a fly around.
Looking at the diagrams at 8:23 and 8:28, the kink allowed them more flexibility and clearance in docking options of the Soyuz to the ISS configuration at the time. Seems like the kink simply offers more flexibility by allowing modules to be offset in general... Along with maximizing accessibility to the shuttle's cargo, of course.
adapter comes from the Space Shuttle that might as well be carrying a pressurised space lab inside the cargo bay. I still got the model from the eighties, with that "oddly shaped" adapter. So that's because the two hatches were off considerably and there were backup structures left to be used in a new program. simple as that!
I'd like to see a video on how objects (spacecraft, satellites, etc) degrade in space over time. I'm no scientist, but it seems like rusting isn't a problem, but other issues such as the thermal mentioned, extreme temperature changes, etc. You mentioned this docking adapter has been used as storage, and in the future could be used again, so its interesting to know if these things degrade overtime any differently than they would on earth.
The renderings for the Freedom Space Station showing the offset design for the adapter. From the drawing it looks like the Soyuz capsule hatch is smaller than that on the the space station. In process plant, changes in pipeline size are often done using offset conical designs like this. Offhand I'm not sure if it has a lower pressure drop for a flowing fluid than a conical design, (not that this is a problem in this case), but it could be easier to fabricate. Also, it might be more resistant to buckling under sideways forces, something a mechanical engineer could confirm. Like the adapter for the Space Shuttle, it does have the benefit, (may be the sole design criterion), that it moves the Soyuz capsule a little bit further from the space station.
its to reduce the shock on contact throughout the whole structure. With a angle, there is some kind of flex and shock distribution available to protect the station's equipment.
According to Boris Chertok' memoirs, they were going to call it "hermaphroditic", but thought it a bit unsavory and went ahead with a more neutral term "androgynous" from botany.
Wahoo! That was very interesting. It's like with software development, you still have to deal with legacy even when the feature (here the Space Shuttle) is not used anymore.
They will change the personal entry procedure to have a astronaut enter relatively upside down so you face the bend upward instead or the way the astronauts entered from Crew Dragon then rotate after entry for the photo opt.
The adapter is both slanted and tapered. This is required because the designers on one end used the metric system, while the other end uses the English system of inches and stones. Notice also how one end is round and the other end is square. 21st Century adapter to make round peg fit into square hole.
Sometimes science isn't that much interesting. But that is why I love it since it won't change just to be more exciting. It is as it has to be. Science is pragmatic, just like this piece of hardware, that isn't worth bothering changing. I love science because it's not up to debate and so it grounds me in life.
Hey Scott, do you think part adjustment and scaling (like in spore creature creator) was considered for KSP2? What problems might the developers run into if a system like that was implemented?
At 03:49 that bag on the right labelled "новый год" (New Year's, which is effectively Christmas in Russian culture) reminds me of the "Do not open until Thanksgiving" bag in The Martian. I hope those cosmonauts and astronauts had a good New Year's!
There is actually inertial gravity effects on the ISS, the lack of superstructure density puts it at risk of coordinated hull breach at points of highest load. Like snapping a piece of celery.
Would it be possible to have labels on which space-station modules you're talking about in future videos. I have no idea which is the crystal module of MIR. Not all of us have spent significant time watching the construction of these systems, and with the orientations changing from image to image it can be tricky to keep it all in my tiny mind.
It is purely for structural strength using this design is 10 times stronger that a straight connecting tube. It can bare more torsional and lateral movements, which happen when docking.
