User:Tony Mach/Docking



< Talk:Spacecraft docking and berthing mechanisms

< User:Tony Mach/Spacecraft docking and berthing mechanisms

Several overlapping categories, how to avoid category mistakes?

To physically connect with another space object

 * Docking (colloquial for all below?)
 * Mating
 * Berthing
 * Attaching
 * Capturing
 * (Soft-/Hard-)Capture
 * Soft-/Hard-Dock
 * Grappling

To connect with powered flight

 * Docking

To connect something using an robotic arm
But docking is colloquially used as well.
 * Berthing

To get physically hold of another space object
Surely docking is used as well
 * Capture
 * Grapple

To connect a new module to a space station

 * Docking
 * Berthing
 * Mating

Mechanisms
vs.
 * Both sides feature an interface designed "for each other"
 * One side uses an mechanism for "docking/capturing/grappling" something that was not designed for a physical connection in space

Missions

 * Space stations (crew transfer, resupply, construction, etc.)
 * Sample return
 * HST Servicing Missions
 * Robotic sat repair
 * Robotic deorbit

Some disambiguous terms from above

 * The narrow Docking=powered flight vs. the general Docking=Attaching
 * The narrow Capture=part of docking/berthing vs. Capture=Somehow getting physical hold of
 * The Berthing=Process of being attached vs. Something remains berthed (possibly after docking?)

Spacecraft vs. ?
A spacecraft is by definition with propulsion, but what is a good therm for the class of man made objects that lack propulsion, like space station modules, defective satellites, etc.? Manmade space objects?

Process
What is the process, what are steps necessary to achieve docking, berthing, etc.?

Controlled by
Manned, crewed, unmanned, uncrewed, unpiloted, autonomous, guided, remote controlled, robotic, …

Other systems needed for Docking/Berthing/whatever

 * Rendezvous
 * Aproach
 * Ranging
 * Docking tone ranging system
 * Light beacons
 * Radar
 * Laser
 * Guidance
 * Visual: Centerline cameras, …


 * Grapple/Capture connectors for Berthing



Soyuz/Progress' Kurs (docking system) (previous Igla (spacecraft docking system)), ATV's ???, HTV's ???, Shuttle's TriDAR and ???, SpaceX's DragonEye, etc.

Misfits?
Include or exclude the following?
 * Mating of Zarya with PMA-1
 * Connection between Soyuz's orbital module and reentry module
 * Space Shuttle and the Spacelab habitable modules
 * The HTV's Unpressurized Logistics Carrier for Kibo's Exposed Pallet / Experiment Logistics Module (or whatever the current English name is)
 * Unpressurized "modules" like the ExPRESS Logistics Carrier ("Express Pallet"), External Stowage Platforms, Integrated cargo carriers, Orbital replacement units, etc.
 * Unpressurized "modules" from the Integrated Truss Structure
 * Power Data Grapple Fixtures?
 * DARPA's grapple device for robot-satellites

You either include it all in one big heap of everything, or you have to split into well-defined subgroups. Can we define these sub-groups?

Standards vs. Implementations vs. Systems vs. Mechanisms
Is the Chinese system a "different" mechanism than the APAS used by the Russians or the Space Shuttles? Or is it rather the same standard?

If you go down the "mechanism" route, are there then more different implementations of the standard? Apollo Lunar Module vs. Skylab? Salyut-1 vs Zvezda? Soyuz vs. ATV? Are the CBMs on Node 1 (US built) the same "mechanisms" as the one on Node 2 (Italian built, if I recall) as on Kibo (Japanese built) as on the Z1 truss (non-pressurized CBM)?

And actually all non-androgynous mechanisms are two mechanisms: The mechanism on the active spacecraft, and the mechanism on the passive spacecraft.

I would opt for either Standards or Systems.

Manned Docking/Berthing mechanisms that matter
If you boil it down, these are the five standards that were used, are currently used, or will probably be used in a non-experimental setting:
 * Apollo "probe and drogue"
 * Soyuz "probe and drogue"
 * Modern APAS
 * CBM
 * The future IDSS ("NDS")

The rest is either experimental (e.g. Gemini, "Original" Soyuz), one offs (e.g. APAS for ASTP), or variations (APAS-89, APAS-95, Chinese, …).

Or if you look at the numbers: Manned and unmanned flights to the ISS are about 130+ together. Then you about 190 flights for Mir, Salyut 7 and 6 together. That is Soyuz "probe and drogue", APAS and a hand full of CBM construction or cargo flights. When in the foreseeable future will any other system reach these numbers? Crewed or uncrewed? There is a lot of space devoted to future possible vaporware, and the systems that get used "every day" are a foot note.

I'm not saying to write nothing about the others, the rest needs to be mentioned, but can we focus on the stuff that matters? .