"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
Are you kidding me? I had to skip past a lot of nonsense just to get the answer as to why there's an asymmetry. He just kept talking about everything else other than the thing I wanted to fuking know
Answer at 4:12: We don't know. But we can theorize. Maybe to provide better access to the shuttle payload area once docked, like to pull a big thing out of there. Another thought: Since there is a bump when they first meet, it can be oriented for the force to be a tad closer to the center of gravity to reduce rotation a bit, less need for jet firings to reduce induced rotation. I have to add that I find the precisely navigated collision of two weightless high mass objects at 17,000 miles an hour ... oddly satisfying: 2:43 I'll see myself out.
The video is 11 minutes long and could have been "it isn't confirmed but it is offset for the space shuttle to shift it rearward to give better access to the cargo bay" with the photo at 5:09. I disagree about delivering info quickly, but he does make an entertaining video which goes into lots of detail.
@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. ☺
Mathematician23 well KSP wasn’t a thing when these were rolled out. By now everyone in any aerospace program has played KSP, passing human beans through these is the way of the future I’m sure of it ahaha
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.
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.
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.
The clearance issue makes sense going forward indefinitely. Any future vehicle could still potentially exploit the asymmetry to get more clearance in their chosen direction.
You prefer Space Shuttle's goofy J-turn instead of putting a docking port closer to the crew cabin that comes straight out and has no cargo interference?
@@bradallen1832 it’s just more clearance for a broader range of vehicles. I prefer whatever works. It’s counterintuitive but I understand why they did this. Emotionally I prefer the simpler straight corridor.
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.
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
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.
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
Being a Automotive Mechanic, the offset angle appears to me a crash structure that will be sacrificed during a bad docking maneuver without transferring the impact loads directly in a linear path into the entire ISS structure.
Thanks Scott. I've been wondering this about the PMA for a while and the payload clearance issue seems pretty obvious now that you point it out. And well, if it ain't broken don't fix it!
@ 8:25 you can see that the offset gives the soyuz enough room to dock with all that scaffolding in the way. I'm not sure if that was the intention behind the design, but it's interesting nonetheless.
I notice in the depiction at 8:19 the shape of the docking adapter also allows for more clearance between the the Soyuz docked to the Zenith PMA and the truss.
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.
The APAS is a significant upgrade over its predecessor. In testing, it was proven much more compatible with various types of equipment than the M0N-Ky-Bu77 docking port that it was developed from. On another note, the section that showed the shuttle's docking equipment in different locations has me curious about how the Center of Gravity was managed for the mission segment wherein the shuttle was expected to pretend to be an airplane. I expect at least one instance of them having to pile hammers and crapsacks on the dashboard, and everyone lean forward and extend their hands and feet... Just to make sure it doesn't swap heads and tails.
well it only needed to be a plane on the way down and not on the way up, so wouldn't it always have a similar center-of-gravity empty? or maybe the thing just flew like such a damn brick anyways and it did have fairly large control surfaces given the speed that it was going. but yes of course center of gravity vs. Center of lift is important for anything that flies, even the loose definition of flying that applies to the shuttle
I think it would be moreorless fine CoG wise. I'd imagine it wasn't super significant compared to the cabin area at the front and the engines at the back, and both positions appear to be well forward of the center of lift which would be close to the back with those big delta wings. So as long as the shuttle was able to fly without the docking adapter at all, it shouldn't change much.
As I recall, the shuttle was designed to return hardware from orbit, and did so on at least one occasion. So the docking port may have been well-inside it’s CG limits.
Considering the shuttle was essentially a sophisticated, winged, rigid heavy truck, surely there were procedures on how to fill the cargo bay. It might have even been a simple rule like fill from the back forward
@@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!
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
Going by the placement of the upper windows on the shuttle, it also looks as if the offset lets the shuttle crew have a good view of the station and any reference marks as they close in for docking.
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... 🚀
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
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)
I've always assumed that the PMA between ROS and USOS is also for the center of mass to be closer to the centerline of ROS (as the pressurized modules of USOS are at the bottom and truss section is at the top). Which would help when ISS is boosted from the aft port to prevent unwanted torque.
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.
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.
Seems to be the shuttles shape. Look at the shuttle docking. They made it that shape to fit behind the cockpit. ;) Or as you say, fit closer to behind the cockpit to allow more access to the cargo bay.
That is one thing that they are intending to test with the Dragon this visit if they have the time. I believe the aim is to undock within 4minutes. I don't know if that's after boarding or hatch close or all in all.
3 minutes to get in the Soyuz and close the hatch. They actually practice this. Then the crew can undock and land completely independently with no help from the ground if necessary. 3.5 hours from getting in the spacecraft until touchdown in Kazakhstan.
So you are saying the weird, complicated bent tunnels from the docking port are the result of not just a design-by-committee, but a design-by-international committee?
3:50 I absolutely love footage that comes from nuked cameras. It's so cool knowing that that damage to the photo sensor is literally just one of the reapercussions of being in space. Radiation is so interesting.
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?
One of the reasons for instance that we paint logos on docking rings is to give coordinate postularity for targeting during mating procedures. There is an up and a down in space, ironically... this is just, on top of that, an easier way to achieve the same function with a higher degree of north/south particularity.
Everything from 08:51 to 09:50 is from Shuttle-Mir missions, before ISS was constructed. The picture showing all of Mir space station with the docked Orbiter is taken from Soyuz in 1995. 09:51 onwards is also from Soyuz, showing the combined Orbiter-ISS stack.
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.
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.
at 8:33 there's a drawing showing the adapter with two Soyuz attached, and a space shuttle doesn't seem to fit there. May this be the origin of the 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.
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.
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.
During assembly angling the adapters allowed for an unobstructed removal of space station elements from the shuttle cargobays. They are angled for more clearance.
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?
Please forgive my naïveté, but couldn’t we ask one of the engineers involved in designing the docking adapter? I know the readily available sources don’t specify, but couldn’t someone at NASA, RosKosmos, etc. give us an answer?
I didn't make the comment but you're saying what I was thinking, so now I just have to say something, right? Lol, I hope you get an answer! I'd actually like to know!
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?
The offset may be a crumple zone, in case of collision at higher-than-expected speed. If the adapter is straight, the energy is transmitted directly through, rather than being absorbed in the breaking of the adapter. But the point about access to cargo bay makes sense.
So... the Soviet Union had a Soyuz rescue plan for their shuttle. And meanwhile NASA felt there wasn't even a point in inspecting tiles for launch damage.
We have had some things over the years, as an example in which orbital degradation was considered a potential risk variable in which shunting the ISS became a potential and so, structurally integral redesign was a favoured vector to minimise the risk of catastrophic loss.
The shape was built in to provide clearances for the shuttle to safely dock. The problem first came up during the shuttle-Mir program so using that knowledge a solution was engineered into ISS. With Mir, before the docking module was installed they had to move the Kristall module to provide enough room so they learned something from that program and built it in from the start.
Not even the ISS can avoid needing too many dongles.
They are called adapters!
FuzzyToasterMeister I know I wish I had more dongles.
It's a 20 year old collaboration with multiple countries, what do you expect?
Dongle sounds lewd. UwU
So much Whoooosh! In this thread.
"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 meetings of IT with finance about budget.
@@S6R15 or just dreams
@@confuded I can confirm this
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.
@@lonerider92 So that is why everyone can get access to every company intranet. It would be too expensive to replace the Cisco routers.
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.
and yet its still kinda difficult for your first time
@@SpaceKebab it took me years to finally learn it.
@@reactorfour1682 man i absolutely no lifed for 2 weeks and finally grasped it man it felt so rewarding ill tell you that
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
Scott has a gift for clear speech and delivering lots of info quickly. I love how he gets right to the point and wastes none of our time.
Are you kidding me? I had to skip past a lot of nonsense just to get the answer as to why there's an asymmetry. He just kept talking about everything else other than the thing I wanted to fuking know
Answer at 4:12:
We don't know.
But we can theorize. Maybe to provide better access to the shuttle payload area once docked, like to pull a big thing out of there.
Another thought: Since there is a bump when they first meet, it can be oriented for the force to be a tad closer to the center of gravity to reduce rotation a bit, less need for jet firings to reduce induced rotation. I have to add that I find the precisely navigated collision of two weightless high mass objects at 17,000 miles an hour ... oddly satisfying: 2:43 I'll see myself out.
@@sacr3 chill bro allow urself to be educated
The video is 11 minutes long and could have been "it isn't confirmed but it is offset for the space shuttle to shift it rearward to give better access to the cargo bay" with the photo at 5:09. I disagree about delivering info quickly, but he does make an entertaining video which goes into lots of detail.
Yes, I agree. The opposite of Isaac Arthur who drifts down rabbit holes so often and so far you forget what the point of the video was.
The solution is to use oddly-shaped astronauts
Finally, the perfect career for me!
yah. this is actually a common approach in space and on land
Scoliosis time
Ah, Kerbals
@@printedprops8730 the kerbals have L A R J heads, actually making bumping more likely
Damn, even INTEL doesn't have so many socket standards.
AHAHAHAH
Oh contraire they are getting close
At least they don't have to flip the capsule 180 degrees three times in a row to get it to fit...
Standards are like toothbrushes, everybody wants one but nobody wants someone else's.
you haven't seen the screw standards.
Wow, the ISS requires almost as many adapters as the new MacBook
Pete is never wrong
Well maybe a little bit more...
@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. ☺
@@Cammi_Rosalie Okay, I feel better knowing I'm NOT the only one that accidentally does that! :-)
@@Cammi_Rosalie I don't think RUclips notifies, or even counts the downvotes. But thanks tho
@@dxkaiyuan4177 it's called likes
So what you’re saying is you can’t take two magnetic circles, smash them together, and magically transfer green beans through them?
Someone hasn’t played Kerbal Space Program...
Mathematician23 well KSP wasn’t a thing when these were rolled out. By now everyone in any aerospace program has played KSP, passing human beans through these is the way of the future I’m sure of it ahaha
Yes
Green astronaut beans, without the space suit they would fit
you'd want to use electromagnets tho right?
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.
that's basically the bigelow module right now
@@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.
@@vaska00762 Russia: Nauka will launch in 2021!
Also Russia: maybe never ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Outside of Bartolomeo, all the planned additions to the station will be for more storage
Nakua is slowly joining the leagues of JWST and SLS.
*Doug bangs his head*
Scott: "Oh damn, better start researching"
Doug sacrificed his forehead in the name of science
gotta love how the two docking modules are "International" and "Russian"
The Russians might use different terminology -- like "metric" and "Imperialist."😁
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.
And the American Space Station. ASS.
Also ironic because in the US, "international" tends to mean "non-American."
@@unvergebeneid haha so really it means non-american and Russian 😂
Scott, more interesting space history. Could one give more details on how the docking adapter functions??
Check out Simply Space. He has a great video on the International Docking Standard!
@@austinholmes96 i just wanted to recommend simply space, too
He uses blender to show all kind of cool stuff
@@austinholmes96 Cheers
it keeps the space out of the station unless it is not space outside.
@@hl_scientist1964 It works like a door
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.
Yep
If I recall, the shuttle was manually piloted while docking using the overhead windows.
I thought docking was automated?
It also allowed the massive Shuttle payload bay to be unobstructed by station modules.
They had the to manually dock the shuttle? Didn't the Soyuz have automated docking even though it was a older spacecraft.
"I'm Scott Manley; fly safe"
*proceeds to bump head....*
Oh my God Scott, it's 2020, you can't just ask space station docking ports why they aren't straight!
Yes you can, because the answer is educational for the general public, encouraging more pro-offset sentiment.
Lol yeah they about to cancel Star Trek because the Klingons in the 1960s wore blackface
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.
You can't ask them why they aren't straight. But... You can ask them about their kinks!
Oh come on, all the guys triggered by his comment, he is joking
The clearance issue makes sense going forward indefinitely. Any future vehicle could still potentially exploit the asymmetry to get more clearance in their chosen direction.
You prefer Space Shuttle's goofy J-turn instead of putting a docking port closer to the crew cabin that comes straight out and has no cargo interference?
@@bradallen1832 it’s just more clearance for a broader range of vehicles. I prefer whatever works. It’s counterintuitive but I understand why they did this. Emotionally I prefer the simpler straight corridor.
I thought the shape was to have a lower structural rigidity in case of a "crash" while docking, sort of a crush zone.
Yeah, that was my first thought.
I was thinking that, if it was straight it could transmit force to the station in the event of heavy docking
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.
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.
How cool! Your comment is actually very nice, much respect, both ways right!
Engineering is an awesome job it's all about solving problems
Dani Syx so much math though
@@danisyx5804 All jobs are all about solving problems, the problems are just different.
@@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
I see this was downvoted by 1 guy who bumps his head a lot.
:D
Probably a NFL hopeful who gave up football career to sign up for astronaut program.
As a tall person this offends me. Doorframes are scary man.
@@Guru_1092 Doors and corners, kid, doors and corners. (Investigator Miller)
@@Guru_1092 true
Imagine if the Buran was still flying. I was able to see one in Speyer in the Technik. The Soviets had some amazing ingenuity.
It flew once.
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.
@@Yutani_Crayven We wouldn't have ISS without Shuttle. Or Hubble. Confront your bias because your bias is blatantly obvious.
@@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.
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
Scott, it makes me so glad to hear you use the metric system in these videos.
Being a Automotive Mechanic, the offset angle appears to me a crash structure that will be sacrificed during a bad docking maneuver without transferring the impact loads directly in a linear path into the entire ISS structure.
Does make sense. An aluminum can bent some is easier to crush without causing more damage to what it's attached to.
5:05 It does makes sense to think it's a design choice to maximize the shuttle's cargo area length.
The sheer amount of research you must do to put these videos together is quite impressive, I really love your content 😁😄
Thanks Scott. I've been wondering this about the PMA for a while and the payload clearance issue seems pretty obvious now that you point it out. And well, if it ain't broken don't fix it!
@ 8:25 you can see that the offset gives the soyuz enough room to dock with all that scaffolding in the way. I'm not sure if that was the intention behind the design, but it's interesting nonetheless.
This. Not sure why Scott didn’t mention that aspect.
I notice in the depiction at 8:19 the shape of the docking adapter also allows for more clearance between the the Soyuz docked to the Zenith PMA and the truss.
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?
yes
The wheels turn slowly in the globalist model.
Slartybarfast B ?
Sounds about right
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.
The APAS is a significant upgrade over its predecessor. In testing, it was proven much more compatible with various types of equipment than the M0N-Ky-Bu77 docking port that it was developed from.
On another note, the section that showed the shuttle's docking equipment in different locations has me curious about how the Center of Gravity was managed for the mission segment wherein the shuttle was expected to pretend to be an airplane. I expect at least one instance of them having to pile hammers and crapsacks on the dashboard, and everyone lean forward and extend their hands and feet... Just to make sure it doesn't swap heads and tails.
well it only needed to be a plane on the way down and not on the way up, so wouldn't it always have a similar center-of-gravity empty? or maybe the thing just flew like such a damn brick anyways and it did have fairly large control surfaces given the speed that it was going. but yes of course center of gravity vs. Center of lift is important for anything that flies, even the loose definition of flying that applies to the shuttle
@@laprepper It still carried the docking port when it was empty.
I think it would be moreorless fine CoG wise. I'd imagine it wasn't super significant compared to the cabin area at the front and the engines at the back, and both positions appear to be well forward of the center of lift which would be close to the back with those big delta wings. So as long as the shuttle was able to fly without the docking adapter at all, it shouldn't change much.
As I recall, the shuttle was designed to return hardware from orbit, and did so on at least one occasion. So the docking port may have been well-inside it’s CG limits.
Considering the shuttle was essentially a sophisticated, winged, rigid heavy truck, surely there were procedures on how to fill the cargo bay. It might have even been a simple rule like fill from the back forward
I work with a bunch of ex-shuttle techs and engineers. I will ask around today at work and see what I can get for an answer.
Just tell me too please!
Did you get the data?
*cricket sounds*
*cricket sounds intensify*
Plz.
It's interesting how similar some of this equipment is to what i use underwater as an ROV pilot/tech. RE:Docking rings and manipulators etc.
@DANK When you factor in the ambient pressure at depth i would say it's every bit as dangerous too
@@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!
Airlocks in games: takes two seconds.
Airlocks in reality: takes hours.
*Questions I've literally never asked myself*
Scott Manley: Don't worry, I got an interesting answer.
Depends on your point of view, speaking for myself I have always wanted to know.
Hey, if even I can dock successfully (using the SpaceX Dragon simulator), then it's a damn fine design.
I can
(6:00) Hell of a photograph. How was it taken? 😕
(9:52) Who recorded that!? 😮
@@nagualdesign I'd imagine a visiting Soyuz
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
@@coreytaylor447 Pretty far out for a space walk, my money would be on Soyuz.
@@danieljensen2626 I wonder what the furthest distance an untethered astronaut has been from the ISS or Space Shuttle?
Going by the placement of the upper windows on the shuttle, it also looks as if the offset lets the shuttle crew have a good view of the station and any reference marks as they close in for docking.
That's my theory too.
They don't normally dock the shuttle from the front seats. They do it from the aft flight deck looking out the cargo bay windows and overhead windows.
"Standards are great, there are so many to choose from!"
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... 🚀
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.
Scott, any idea as to why the alignment petals were moved inside for APAS-89 and onward? I've always wondered.
Always wanted to know this strange design!!
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
That is a video! 👌
"I'm Scott Manley, dock safe!"
*proceeds to bump head on docking port*
“Used for storing towels, wet wipes, and rubber gloves.”
What are they doing in space that requires that many towels, wet wipes, and rubber gloves?
I heard the Chinese shenzhou also uses IDA as the adapter for Tiangong, so technically it can dock ISS, is that true?
Yep!
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)
I've always assumed that the PMA between ROS and USOS is also for the center of mass to be closer to the centerline of ROS (as the pressurized modules of USOS are at the bottom and truss section is at the top). Which would help when ISS is boosted from the aft port to prevent unwanted torque.
The downside is that you can't fit a cargo rack through that opening like you can through the CBM.
Thanks. Clear and informative as usual. Nice that you really dig down into the details and history.
0:40 Docking adapters traditionally have both a male and female component. This one is simply curved for her pleasure.
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.
cool to see it back in the Space Station Freedom proposals.
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.
The must have used this type of adapter on the Death Star causing the storm trooper to bump his head.
Seems to be the shuttles shape. Look at the shuttle docking. They made it that shape to fit behind the cockpit. ;)
Or as you say, fit closer to behind the cockpit to allow more access to the cargo bay.
4:34 Bad theories on internet....nah none of those around! haha
I've heard that the ISS is flat
The photos are absolute gorgeous, and the footage of the station at 10:00 is amazing.
A little bit unrelated question. In case of an emergency, how long will it take them to get into the capsule and undock?
Well what's the emergency?
What kind of emergency is not important. My question is, how long will it take if they do it as quickly as possible?
That is one thing that they are intending to test with the Dragon this visit if they have the time. I believe the aim is to undock within 4minutes. I don't know if that's after boarding or hatch close or all in all.
3 minutes to get in the Soyuz and close the hatch. They actually practice this. Then the crew can undock and land completely independently with no help from the ground if necessary. 3.5 hours from getting in the spacecraft until touchdown in Kazakhstan.
So basically, as with everything in NASA's history after Apollo, "because Space Shuttle".
Wait until they move on USB-D, they'll need a whole new adapter!
Still my favourite channel on RUclips.
What I find interesting is the thumbnail shows a starliner docking which has never and probably will never happen.
Not at this rate
Hi Scott, could you explain why the shuttle's thermal tiles were bespoke but SpaceX is developing hexagonal tiles?
When the ISS is really aroused it straightens out and gets longer.
thats a valid reason
Read the Bible you unholy thing
@@kyleking3839 why are you so sensitive? Its a joke, get over it
So you are saying the weird, complicated bent tunnels from the docking port are the result of not just a design-by-committee, but a design-by-international committee?
Scott, can you please do us Canadians a proper service and refer to it as the Canadarm?! :D
Especially since we were literally the only country that was able to design and build them.
3:50 I absolutely love footage that comes from nuked cameras. It's so cool knowing that that damage to the photo sensor is literally just one of the reapercussions of being in space. Radiation is so interesting.
" *which obviously increases the chances of banging your head* "
Meanwhile dough hurley hitting his head whit the top 0:33
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?
USSR: *Develops capability to rescue cosmonauts from orbit before Buran ever flys*
NASA: Yeah right, like we'll ever need that...
It'll be *fiiiiiiiiine*
One of the reasons for instance that we paint logos on docking rings is to give coordinate postularity for targeting during mating procedures. There is an up and a down in space, ironically... this is just, on top of that, an easier way to achieve the same function with a higher degree of north/south particularity.
Everyone commenting before they could possibly have watched the entire video 🤣
I watch my videos at two or three times speed using external software. ; )
@@thelonelyrogue3727 I hope there's external software that helps your ears process sentences at two or three times speed 😂
@@grandelDR 🤣 This man speaks facts.
It's a hard road to walk when you want your comments to make sense.
I actually wrote this reply before you posted your comment! What am I like, eh? 😊
@Scott Manley How was the video captured at 9:26? Was it from a Soyuz module? Was there ever two overlapping shuttle missions to the ISS?
Everything from 08:51 to 09:50 is from Shuttle-Mir missions, before ISS was constructed. The picture showing all of Mir space station with the docked Orbiter is taken from Soyuz in 1995. 09:51 onwards is also from Soyuz, showing the combined Orbiter-ISS stack.
Imagine designing a way to rescue astronauts stranded in a Space Shuttle that was unable to reenter...Good show, Burma/Soyuz
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.
@@KlusaisUldis I think he is referring to the Columbia disaster
@@KlusaisUldis
That isn't remotely true.
The diagrams at 8:20 show you why. Moves the Soyuz far enough away from that main truss.
The PMA was designed with that kink before Russia was ever part of the project. He tells you that in the video.
I sure hope none of the astronauts are OCD...
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.
3:40 Sort of looks like a Dalek.
Have you noticed that scifi often influences reality and vice versa. Like look at the amount of tech was shown in star trek that is now a real thing.
at 8:33 there's a drawing showing the adapter with two Soyuz attached, and a space shuttle doesn't seem to fit there. May this be the origin of the offset??
They built them starting from both ends and they mismatched due to a metric /imperial miscalculation.
How did they make the (awesome) photo at 8:55 ? (I was gonna say, 'how on earth did the' , but that might have been confusing lol)
I think that picture was taken from a departing Soyuz spacecraft.
Me and the docking ports share a common feature:
Were both not straight
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.
Me: looks at thumbnail: "the docking adapters on the ISS are not straight"
Also me: OK so they are gay!!??🏳️🌈
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.
TLDR: He doesn’t know for sure why.
Yep, bloody clickbait.
Thank you for letting us know why in the first minute. It made me want to watch more.
Hope the rest of your videos are like this.
How long before the term "androgynous" offends somebody?
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.
Scott. Love how you cover the subjects that literally nobody else has even considered. ♥️
During assembly angling the adapters allowed for an unobstructed removal of space station elements from the shuttle cargobays. They are angled for more clearance.
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?
Please forgive my naïveté, but couldn’t we ask one of the engineers involved in designing the docking adapter? I know the readily available sources don’t specify, but couldn’t someone at NASA, RosKosmos, etc. give us an answer?
I didn't make the comment but you're saying what I was thinking, so now I just have to say something, right? Lol, I hope you get an answer! I'd actually like to know!
Everybody involved in Freedom's original design decisions are long since retired, or dead.
I really enjoy all your work, you really Dig Deep to find all you can on your subjects! Thanks, Scott
It's very hard to future proof things, especially when technology like this changes with newer designs.
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?
The offset may be a crumple zone, in case of collision at higher-than-expected speed.
If the adapter is straight, the energy is transmitted directly through, rather than being absorbed in the breaking of the adapter. But the point about access to cargo bay makes sense.
So... the Soviet Union had a Soyuz rescue plan for their shuttle. And meanwhile NASA felt there wasn't even a point in inspecting tiles for launch damage.
We have had some things over the years, as an example in which orbital degradation was considered a potential risk variable in which shunting the ISS became a potential and so, structurally integral redesign was a favoured vector to minimise the risk of catastrophic loss.
The shape was built in to provide clearances for the shuttle to safely dock. The problem first came up during the shuttle-Mir program so using that knowledge a solution was engineered into ISS. With Mir, before the docking module was installed they had to move the Kristall module to provide enough room so they learned something from that program and built it in from the start.
Did you even watch the video before commenting?