Cargo ship set for precision docking with ISS, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 29-4-2008 @ 08:48 AM by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Enceladus


It takes a lot more than just a heat shield for a spacecraft to be able to survive the forces of re-entry. I'm not saying it couldn't be designed to withstand re-entry, I'm just saying it's not as simple as adding a heatshield.

Obviously the Europeans probably have the capability to design a craft that could survive re-entry and landing in good enough shape as to be re-used or recycled, but that would have added greater cost to the design. I suspect that they decided that designing a reusable craft was not worth the added cost incurred by its ability to be reusable/recyclable.


reply posted on 29-4-2008 @ 10:41 AM by Enceladus
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People



I understood if they wanna reuse the ATV then it involves many other technology, time, money and many more things than just a heat shield. Thanks for explaining these things.


reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 06:55 AM by Enceladus
reply to post by Credulity Kills



Credulity Kills, thanks for that detailed explanation; never knew the difference between autonomous docking and manual docking. So it is better to go with manual docking right? even then I guess manual docking will have some draw backs when we compare it with the autonomous docking else they wouldn't have gone for it right?


reply posted on 3-5-2008 @ 11:49 PM by Credulity Kills
Originally posted by Enceladus
Credulity Kills, thanks for that detailed explanation; never knew the difference between autonomous docking and manual docking. So it is better to go with manual docking right? even then I guess manual docking will have some draw backs when we compare it with the autonomous docking else they wouldn't have gone for it right?

No problem at all. There are pros and cons to be sure, but my personal preference tends towards manual dockings. I'm sure some of my colleagues would disagree.

As I see it, the biggest problem with automated dockings is that the software isn't smart enough to be able to counteract every possible failure scenario. A well trained human on, on the other hand, can exercise judgement and adapt accordingly. This is why all governmental space agencies have retained humans in mission control centers rather than relying exclusively on onboard FDIR (Fault Detection, Isolation, and Recovery).

The other issue with automated dockings is that they don't really relieve the crew to do other things. With ESA's ATV, a crew member is required to sit there and watch the incoming vehicle via CCTV and press a manual abort button if required. This takes just about as much attention and certainly as much time as flying a vehicle in manually.

It's worth noting that while all Russian vehicles default to automated dockings, the cosmonauts almost always override it and fly the Soyuz or Progress in manually. There's another reason for this: cosmonauts get bonuses for performing off-nominal activities*. Crazy, but true.

*If you haven't already done so, I'd highly recommend reading Bryan Borough's "Dragonfly" about the ISS Phase 1 program (U.S. astronauts and shuttle to Mir). You'll learn all sorts of crazy things like that.


reply posted on 5-5-2008 @ 06:02 AM by Enceladus
reply to post by Credulity Kills



Thanks a lot for your valuable input; I will sure try Bryan Borough's "Dragonfly". And now onwards I will keep a track on Introducing Credulity Kills Thread

Pages:     ^^TOP^^