NASA Dumps iLIDS Docking System
NASA Decides to Adopt Boeing SIMAC Design for Docking and Retiring the iLIDS Design
“Obviously, this is a disappointing outcome. But while iLIDS may not have been the right solution for the ISS Program, the technology that has been developed for this program remains very impressive and the work that everyone has done to bring it this far has been outstanding. While there are many docking system concepts out there, this is the only US system which has actually put hardware together and shown that it functions.”
The NASA Docking System (NDS)
“The NASA Docking System (NDS) is NASA’s implementation of the newly adopted International Docking System Standard (IDSS). The NDS blends state-of-the-art low-impact docking technology which has been under development for many years by the Engineering Directorate at the NASA Johnson Space Center with the heritage Russian Androgynous Peripheral Assembly System (APAS) hard mating interface. The NDS design will be made available as a common design for use by future NASA and United States Commercial Crew vehicles.”
NASA will have to raise design changes on the Dragon, CST-100, Dream Chaser and Blue Origin to permit docking to the ISS. Fixed price is only fixed providing the customer does not change anything. The JWST team and Bigelow Aerospace may need informing.
The Dragon uses the CBM, this does not effect them at all..
I thought the crewed version was going to dock, not be berthed. If it is going to be used as a lifeboat, it has to be able to leave( undock, unberth, whatever ), without anyone being in ISS. I didn’t think that was possible with the CBM.
I agree; the crewed version could accomplish its nominal crew changeout mission with the CBM but it can’t undock without aid and therefore can’t meet the lifeboat requirements. Although it always seemed to me that in a real emergency they could simply release the latches and fire the thrusters to separate.
Regarding simply releasing the latches and firing thrusters to escape – not possible.In
order to release the CBM bolts, four control boxes (called CPAs –
Controller Panel Assemblies) need to be installed around the CBM
hatchway by the ISS crew, and thus their installation would prevent a
quick getaway.
Thus, Dragon will be required to use SIMAC, not the CBM.
Well, ya learn something every day.
Or a second emergency separation plane could be added on the Dragon side. But is SIMAC compatible with IDSS?
Crew Dragon will NOT be using CBM – So this most certainly affects them.
I was very surprised by this statement because SpaceX had previously said they would be fitting a NDS to Dragon Rider, replacing the CBM. However on checking their webpage it no longer lists that change. The text of the SAA should clarify this.
Did the iLIDS miss its launch window?
iLIDS is (was) the ITAR-free version of the existing docking system that the shuttle used. It was open sourced and published here: http://dockingstandard.nasa…
So what is Boeing’s SIMAC?
Will this change speed up or slow down commercial crew?
Doubtful. There is at least 3 years until a first docking by a commercial crew craft, plenty of lead time. They do work on issues in paralell – this should not be the long pole for any of the commercial crew competitors.
I’m afraid I will always associate SIMAC with pasta and ice-cream makers.
No where in the article states WHY and the reasons behind going with Boeing SIMAC other than its narrower.
Folks:
Does this mean that NASA will need an adapter or whole new docking port to dock future spacecraft with the US segment of ISS? If so, who gets this contract? Boeing? Can’t find anything about their docking system either.
As for SpaceX, they have it easy. All they have to do is design a different cap for Dragon Rider with the appropriate docking hardware (which they now will probably have to buy from Boeing) and friction weld it onto a ‘stadard’ Dragon pressure vessel. No big deal.
The big deal hear is that NASA nixed an open source solution, which benefits multiple commercial vendors, for Boeing’s proprietary technology for no other reason then Boeing wanting it that way!
tinker
Once again BIG GOVERNMENT AND BIG FAT CORPERATE COMPANIES teaming up for their own advantage!
WE HAVE TO MAKE MORE NOISE!!!!
Keith, I found this:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archiv…
“Commercial Space Station
Expandable systems have been in development with NASA dating back to before the 1960s. NASA even considered using expandable systems in the 1980’s as part of future planetary expeditions. Bigelow Aerospace has been in development of expandable space habitats since 1999. Most recently, Bigelow has launched two expandable structures to low earth orbit, Genesis I and Genesis II, which were launched in 2006 and 2007 respectively. Bigelow is currently planning to fly an inflatable to ISS. Bigelow is also planning a commercial space station for tourism which will be ready for deployment in 2014, and official habitation by its customers in 2015. Boeing is partnering with Bigelow on the CCDev project. As part of the collaboration Boeing will provide the crew transportation on their commercial crew capsule system to the Bigelow Station. The mechanism to be used for the interface between the CST-100 and the Bigelow module was originally an APAS, but the NDS platform is also consideration due to its implementation as part of the International Docking System Standard (IDSS)
Expandable systems have been in development with NASA dating back to before the 1960s. NASA even considered using expandable systems in the 1980’s as part of future planetary expeditions. Bigelow Aerospace has been in development of expandable space habitats since 1999. Most recently, Bigelow has launched two expandable structures to low earth orbit, Genesis I and Genesis II, which were launched in 2006 and 2007 respectively. Bigelow is currently planning to fly an inflatable to ISS. Bigelow is also planning a commercial space station for tourism which will be ready for deployment in 2014, and official habitation by its customers in 2015. Boeing is partnering with Bigelow on the CCDev project. As part of the collaboration Boeing will provide the crew transportation on their commercial crew capsule system to the Bigelow Station. The mechanism to be used for the interface between the CST-100 and the Bigelow module was originally an APAS, but the NDS platform is also consideration due to its implementation as part of the International Docking System Standard (IDSS)
Bigelow has considered use of the APAS system as the means for attaching the inflatable modules together (inter-module attachment). They have also considered use of the common berthing mechanism. If the choice is made to use the APAS then this would involve a potential use of the new development avionics system for control of the APAS system which Boeing is currently developing.
Um, it says that iLIDS and NDS are synonymous. I don’t get it.
iLIDS (International Low Inpact Docking System) is the International standard. NDS (NASA Docking system) is a NASA desined and manufactured version of iLIDS. I believe that the Chinese have a version as well.
Dropping NDS is one thing, a US private sector firm could sell the iLIS hardware. Dropping iLIS is very different – someone may have to apologise to the Russians and Europeans.
Actually the standard is IDSS (International Docking System Standard) which was set by the ISS Multilateral Coordination Board, which is made up of representatives from the international partners. IDSS isn’t changing.
NASA designed an IDSS compatible docking system known as iLIDS (International Low Impact Docking System) which was later renamed to NDS (NASA Docking System). NASA is tossing out iLIDS not IDSS. This should have no effect on any other country that may be building an IDSS compatible docking system.
Commercial crew companies may be effected depending on how far along they were in implementing NDS, however keep in mind that NASA was doing the design work for them, which I would assume saves the commercial crew companies a lot of time, allowing them to concentrate on designing LES, ECLSS, etc. for their spacecraft. The only change now is that the docking system design that will be used on all of the commercial crew vehicles will be coming from Boeing, not NASA.
The important question is not whether the IDSS is changing but “Is the ISS going to have one”.