Universal Modular Spacecraft and a Truly United Space Standard

[autumnalequinox]

So the deeper I get into KSP the more modular my space program becomes.  It's sort of like a mega-version of the old STS concept program.  Modules get easily swapped and designs become increasingly universal (hab mod + long range service module + nuclear propulsion module = interplanetary spacecraft every time).

I always play my career games as either a private corporation or a sort of Unified Global Space Agency.  I greatly understand that competition is what gets nations and corporations motivated into space.  I do sometimes wonder how much easier things would be if there was some sort of United Space Program (perhaps driven by a near-miss from an asteroid or something else to motivate it and prevent sluggishness that would pervert a global initiative).

I like to imagine what it would be like instead perhaps to have some kind of Universal Serial Bus type of design to all spacecraft, payloads, and the like.  Universal docking ports, standards, even if designs and origins differed things could connect with other things and make it work.  Simple adapters where things don't quite mesh.  Even if we still competed as nations and corporations it would be nifty to be truly cooperative enough for some kind of standard.  I'd be interested if there is anything in the pipeline that anyone knows about.

Perhaps this would be the big gift the Information Age could give to aerospace?

[Bill Phil]

The ISS. APAS docking ports. Even the space shuttle used them, and they were Russian designs, originally. 

[Nibb31]

No, APAS is the old Russian androgynous docking system that was originally designed for Mir, but isn't used any more. The Shuttle fleet was equipped with APAS for the Shuttle-Mir program, so this was carried over to the US section the ISS. It is now being replaced with IDS.

IDSS (International Docking System Standard) is supposed to be the new international standard for docking ports is, which has many implementations (iLIDS, NDS, IDA, SIMAC, IBDM, etc...). IDS is supposed to replace all current docking systems in order to provide interoperability between countries, which should allow cooperation and more flexibility for contingency modes. The standard also includes fluid transfer and data connections, although those are not always implemented. It will equip Orion, Dragon, CST-100, and the IDA adapters that are going to be attached to the existing APAS docking ports on the ISS. IDA-1 was destroyed in the CRS-7 accident.

As with all standards, it has to fight against the existing standards. Although they agreed to the standard, the Russians aren't too keen on implementing it. Their vehicles still use the old "drogue and probe" from the old days. Drogue and probe equips all their ISS components, so why change something that works?

It is thought that China uses a proprietary system derived from APAS, which may or may not be compatible with the Russian 

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Nibb31

[YNM]

Hmm...

EDIT :

My standards in-game mostly follows the real thing. For example, when I played with FASA and Tantares (and very late later gave up, because the computer did that too after every launch) I designed a Duna mission with LM landers from FASA (figured out they are overpowered and can easily land and launch on Duna) but using TKS for habitation, which is a win-win because of the capsule. Fitted a soviet/russian probe-drogue for crew and fuel transfer, as well as probe-drogue from Apollo. Sometime later I though of using ISRU and fitted some APAS port for the ISRU landers.

Yeah, working your way around could be easier to do.

Edited July 14, 2016 by YNM

[Kryten]

The Russians are now starting to use 'hybrid' systems, which can be converted to act either as probe-and-drogue or an APAS-like system; AFAIK the APAS-like system is not IDS compatible, at least in current versions.

[magnemoe]

I tend to use the small docking port as an usb adapter for plugging in various modules. Less relevant with KIS where an kerbal can attach smaller parts directly but in stock its an nice way to give an space station the forgotten antenna. The large docking port is for docking stuff for transport. the standard port is the one I uses less, either things is large enough for the 2.5 meter or so small the small work best. 



 

[kerbiloid]

The standard for me is Beale's Tantares' male/female docking ports.
Not because of their Soviet/Russian origin, but because I really don't see any real purpose for APAS, while they are more complicated and require more precise aiming.
A ship is always the maneuverable actor, a massive station is always the passive one. The same with station modules: You can't miss where is a plug, where is an outlet.
If you need a chain of modules, you just place a male docking port in its nose and a female one in its counter-nose, as in Quantum module of Mir.
Docking two ships — if I forget correctly, it was done just only several times and mostly for lulz than for a practical purpose.
The only case when you need APAS is a rescue operation, but then again you need both ships to be operational, i.e. mostly undamaged. This case looks not very common.

[autumnalequinox]

20 hours ago, YNM said:

Hmm...

EDIT :

My standards in-game mostly follows the real thing. For example, when I played with FASA and Tantares (and very late later gave up, because the computer did that too after every launch) I designed a Duna mission with LM landers from FASA (figured out they are overpowered and can easily land and launch on Duna) but using TKS for habitation, which is a win-win because of the capsule. Fitted a soviet/russian probe-drogue for crew and fuel transfer, as well as probe-drogue from Apollo. Sometime later I though of using ISRU and fitted some APAS port for the ISRU landers.

Yeah, working your way around could be easier to do.

Yeah unfortunately regardless of what's being worked on I fear this the case.

[Nibb31]

On 7/14/2016 at 3:38 PM, kerbiloid said:

The standard for me is Beale's Tantares' male/female docking ports.
Not because of their Soviet/Russian origin, but because I really don't see any real purpose for APAS, while they are more complicated and require more precise aiming.
A ship is always the maneuverable actor, a massive station is always the passive one. The same with station modules: You can't miss where is a plug, where is an outlet.

If you need a chain of modules, you just place a male docking port in its nose and a female one in its counter-nose, as in Quantum module of Mir.
Docking two ships — if I forget correctly, it was done just only several times and mostly for lulz than for a practical purpose.
The only case when you need APAS is a rescue operation, but then again you need both ships to be operational, i.e. mostly undamaged. This case looks not very common.

An androgynous system is much safer in that it provides more contingency modes. If your station is limited to one probe and one drogue, and for some reason the one you intend to use becomes unusable, then you're not going to dock.

Also, imagine a reusable Moon lander that docks to a permanent station. For some reason, it gets stranded and can't reach the station, you might need to be able to send another vehicle to rescue the crew. There are similar rescue requirements in a scenario where a vehicle's heatshield is damaged, or its reentry engines malfunctioned, and you need to send another craft to rescue the crew.

There are plenty of situations where an androgynous system is more flexible, including station building.

 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Also, imagine a reusable Moon lander that docks to a permanent station. For some reason, it gets stranded and can't reach the station, you might need to be able to send another vehicle to rescue the crew. There are similar rescue requirements in a scenario where a vehicle's heatshield is damaged, or its reentry engines malfunctioned, and you need to send another craft to rescue the crew.

Probably so, though the listed cases are exactly the rescue ones, One more case I realized today: when a module undocks and temporarily acts like a standalone unmanned craft, dockable by a service crewed ship.

Edited July 15, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Nibb31]

Yes, and the more people get to live and work in space, and the more diverse the vehicles get, then the more contingency modes are necessary.

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

Can IDSS handle an ISS payload rack?

 

[Nibb31]

12 minutes ago, Emperor of the Titan Squid said:

Can IDSS handle an ISS payload rack?

 

Nope. That's why CRS vehicles are primarily required to be berthed to the CBM ports.