Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

International Effort Brings an Open Standard For Docking In Space

Posted by timothy on from the best-place-to-dock dept.

FTL writes "Engineers from the US, Russia, Japan, Canada and Europe have come together to publish an International Docking Standard for spaceships. Currently the space station has three different types of incompatible docking ports, and the Chinese are developing their own. Standardizing on one type would permit interoperability and facilitate emergency rescues."

101 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Atmosphere by FTL · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Docking of course is just the first step. One also needs agreement on the atmosphere. American spacecraft (Apollo, Skylab) used 100% oxygen at 5 psi. Soviet spacecraft (Soyuz, Salut, Mir) used 20% oxygen 80% nitrogen at 14.7 psi. Neither side could change this easilly. Thus even though Apollo and Soyuz were able to physically dock in 1975, they had to use an airlock between the two spacecraft. Otherwise the cosmonauts would have gotten the bends from decompression and Apollo could have ruptured from overpressure.

    Fortunately this is no longer much of an issue. As a result of the Apollo 1 fire and the deaths of Grissom, White and Chaffee, American spacecraft (starting with the Space Shuttle) adopted the Soviet approach.

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    1. Re:Atmosphere by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 5, Funny

      I also hear the Americans like Magic Carpet Ride by Steppenwolf playing when they open the doors, whereas the Soviets are more inclined to Tchaikovsky.

    2. Re:Atmosphere by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Soviet atmosphere mimicked that of Earths at sea level. 20/80 ratio at 14.7 psi. NASA on the other hand used a pure 100% O2 ratio, so 5psi was all that you needed. And in case you didn't know, your body doesn't need nitrogen as it's an inert gas anyways.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Atmosphere by mirix · · Score: 1

      That's similar to the pressure at the top of Mt. Everest.

      I suppose the fact that it is 100% O2 makes up for the fact that it is low pressure. So.. 1/3rd pressure, but 5x concentration... net would be similar, yeah?

      Besides the point though, as people have done Everest without oxygen anyways, right?

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    4. Re:Atmosphere by Catmeat · · Score: 4, Informative
      Not exactly.... Apollo 1 was about 8 years beforeApollo-Soyuz. They kept flying with 100% oxygen until the Shuttle era.

      The US used pure oxygen because it meant the spacecraft presure could be less, while still delivering the same amount of O2 to the breather. Lower pressure meant a lighter spacecraft with thiner walls. Also, life support systems could be simpler - they just scrubed everything from the atmosphere that's wasn't oxygen.

      Only, on the ground waiting for launch, such a spacecraft would be at atmospheric pressure (to avoid imploding). While 100% O2 at low pressure isn't much of a fire-risk, 100% O2 at atmospheric pressure is a fire-catastrophe waiting to happen, which it duly did with Apollo 1.

      They solved the problem on Apollo by having a normal atmosphere on the ground. As the rocked ascended during launch, the concentration of oxygen slowly increaed, with the overall-pressure slowly reduced in step, so the partial pressure of oxygen remained constant. On the shuttle, they went to oxygen-nitrogen. A downside of this is the need to pre-breath oxygen for 24 hours before a spacewalk. Spacesuits operate at the lowest possible pressure and to go straight-outside in one would give you diver's bends. Bends were never a risk on Apollo as there was simply no nitrgen there to cause it.

    5. Re:Atmosphere by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      American spacecraft (Apollo, Skylab) used 100% oxygen at 5 psi.

      Wha??? That seems rather unlikely, judging by the distinct lack of all-consuming fires on board those aircraft. You got a citation, by any chance?

      As a result of the Apollo 1 fire ... adopted the Soviet approach.

      Ah. So the fire on the very first Apollo spacecraft lead to the change ... and then he subsequent Apollo and Skylab missions used 100% oxygen anyway.

      Wait, what?

    6. Re:Atmosphere by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 3, Informative

      At 100% O2, the partial pressure of oxygen at 5 psi is actually higher than it is on Earth, so it's quite easy.

      Of course, there are other issues with an all-oxygen atmosphere, but breathing isn't one of them. The idea was to reduce the amount of pressure the cabins had to be designed to withstand.

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    7. Re:Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Correct, once they got as far as Apollo 1, it was too late to change something as fundamental as the air pressure. That would have meant a major redesign. Skylab did back away from pure oxygen, but not by much (and only for medical reasons).

      When Nixon threw away everything NASA had ever built (Apollo, Skylab, Saturn, etc), NASA finally had a chance to revisit their earlier error and correct it.

      Citation:
      http://books.google.com/books?id=wQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=apollo+oxygen+skylab&source=bl&ots=5tZFkd3KX5&sig=9ttntVLIZQQjMHin_9rLzy0avZc&hl=en&ei=qD6-TOKTJImssAO0xZn6DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAg

    8. Re:Atmosphere by Dthief · · Score: 1

      Clever bot! copying the parent or alternate poster and then adding in the stupid ads

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    9. Re:Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm always going to prefer the Blue Danube Waltz while docking..... if for no other reason than nostalgia. Who remembers the docking computers in the C64 version of Elite?

    10. Re:Atmosphere by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      It all has to do with the partial pressure. As long as your partial pressure remains the same, your body functions as normal, and there is no higher combustibility than normal air. The problem with the Apollo 1 fire was that they were running pure oxygen at 100kPa for ground tests.

    11. Re:Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There were several changes as a result of the Apollo I incident, but first a little background:

      All american manned spacecraft up until the shuttle was designed to work at a 5PSI pure oxygen environment. This pressure level gives you a similar oxygen content as on earth at sea level, but at a much lower pressure. There were a couple of main reasons for this.

      1) Simpler consumables management as nitrogen doesn't need to be carried as a consumable
      2) EVA activity simplified as no pre-breath required for the space suits. Even today, US space suits operate at about 5PSI (a bit less actually). Currently on the shuttle, the pressure on the shuttle is lowered (with a corresponding decrease in nitrogen content) to about 9psi as that requires a reasonably short pre-breath. I assume that the space station would be similar.

      The space shuttle changed to a sea level environment mainly because it was designed to be a normal work environment for non professionally trained astronauts. Didn't exactly work out that way but that was the intent.

      As to some of the factors of the Apollo I fire, the incident occurred during a test that had been performed on every manned flight within the US space program to that date. The pressure inside the capsule was actually closer to 18PSI pure oxygen as it was to test the pressure differential. In addition, the capsule hatch would only open into the capsule instead of outward. This made it impossible for anyone to open the hatch. The pure oxygen environment at that pressure created an extremely dangerous situation in terms of fire control, but nobody ever thought it was a problem, because it was a routine procedure.

      In terms of citation, you could read the Apollo I accident report which is in NASA's document repository, along with many other references. It isn't hidden knowledge.

    12. Re:Atmosphere by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Ah! Shit, yeah, I should have thought of that. Thanks :)

    13. Re:Atmosphere by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      Not clever so much as ... marginally less stupid on a good day. Maybe.

      That, or whoever wrote the script intended for it to quote the poster above, but failed.

    14. Re:Atmosphere by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Besides the point though, as people have done Everest without oxygen anyways, right?

      Only acclimatising for a long time. The natural atmosphere at that altitude is only marginally survivable. If you dump the atmosphere from a 747 at 30000 feet most people would die quickly.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    15. Re:Atmosphere by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Operating at 5psi makes eva much easier. Lunary surface EVAs would not really have been possible on the moon if the crew had to decompress for three hours every day. They were busy enough anyway.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    16. Re:Atmosphere by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The apollo 1 fire happened at two atmospheres pure oxygen. This is absolutely insane. Five PSI O2 is perfectly safe.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    17. Re:Atmosphere by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unlikely but still factual. What's combustible at 14.7 PSI pure O2 isn't necessarily so at 3 PSI (not 5) pure O2. 3 PSI O2 is roughly the partial-pressure of O2 in air at sea level.

      Even so, a lot of people said it was stupid at the time, and the post-Apollo 1 redesign of the vehicle, while not eliminating the pure O2 atmosphere for flight, did eliminate it during ground tests and also eliminated many potential ignition sources and potentially flammable components. (They also redesigned the cabin hatch to open outwards, quickly, rather than inwards -- increasing the risk of a possible blow-out but enabling for quick escape in the case of another fire.)

      Redesigning Apollo to use a sea-level-like air mix would have made it too heavy to get to the Moon on the existing Saturn V.

      Mind, as a resident of the Denver area and knowing that there are plenty of people living at even greater altitudes, I'm a little surprised they opted for 14.7 PSI for Shuttle when ~12 PSI works just fine. Commercial airliners pressurize the cabin to = 8000 feet, typically ~7000 feet or about 11.5 PSI, but you start running into issues with avionics cooling, comfort, and extreme exertion if you beyond that.

      --
      -- Alastair
    18. Re:Atmosphere by srothroc · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering why we don't use an oxy-helium combination, actually. Does anyone know?

      --
      http://www.tenjou.net/
    19. Re:Atmosphere by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Unless the space suit is at or near 1 atmosphere of pressure itself. I thought modern space suits operated at about 80% of an atmosphere of pressure anyway?

      No, that would make them unusable. You need the pressure as low as possible which means pure oxygen.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    20. Re:Atmosphere by kent_eh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been wondering why we don't use an oxy-helium combination, actually. Does anyone know?

      Might have something to do with this

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    21. Re:Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      N2 is rather inert, and (along with high-quality flue gas, the noble gasses, and various N2/noble gas mixtures) is often referred to as an "inert gas". Perhaps you're confusing "inert gas" with "noble gas", or perhaps you slept through high school chemistry.

    22. Re:Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That would give you suits resembling fully-inflated balloons. Not so easy to move around in.

    23. Re:Atmosphere by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Helium, neon, argon,krypton, xenon and radon are noble gasses. Nitrogen is an inert gas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inert_gas

      Nitric acid is not nitrogen gas. Neither are organic nitrates. I am very sorry for someone who confuses nitrogen gas and nitroglycerine.

    24. Re:Atmosphere by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you? Oxy-helium is used in high pressure environments where nitrogen becomes a narcotic. In a space ship the last thing you want is high pressure.

      Helium is kind of a pain too. It tends to leak through seals a lot faster than other gasses.

    25. Re:Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A downside of this is the need to pre-breath oxygen for 24 hours before a spacewalk. Spacesuits operate at the lowest possible pressure and to go straight-outside in one would give you diver's bends. Bends were never a risk on Apollo as there was simply no nitrgen there to cause it.

      Only true for US spacesuits. The russian suits use a higher pressure and need only a short prebreathing period (30 minutes).

    26. Re:Atmosphere by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because Mission Control would have a hard time keeping a straight face due to the Chipmunk effect?

    27. Re:Atmosphere by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Docking computers are for pussies. Real men dock by hand. Now excuse me while I go searching for a version of Elite and an emulator to run it on.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    28. Re:Atmosphere by dkf · · Score: 1

      I am very sorry for someone who confuses nitrogen gas and nitroglycerine.

      I don't think you need to be very sorry for them for a long time though. But do bring a mop to clean up the mess.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    29. Re:Atmosphere by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Humblest apologies.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    30. Re:Atmosphere by sznupi · · Score: 1

      They've done Everest, but didn't stay there for long.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    31. Re:Atmosphere by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Joint missions being relatively rare? It's almost all that everybody does for more than a decade.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    32. Re:Atmosphere by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who remembers the docking computers in the C64 version of Elite?

      Not those of us who played the original BBC version. :P

      Waste of money anyway. Aim halfway between the planet and the station, then look out of the side window till you're lined up right, and then it's just a case of matching your rotation as you fly right in. Simple.

    33. Re:Atmosphere by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I am thinking in terms of hundreds and even thousands of missions, a combination of commercial and science missions ie many launches every day and hence regular dockings. Real focus should be upon an open research upon the whole gravity problem, how to get by it and how to use it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    34. Re:Atmosphere by sznupi · · Score: 1

      So how do you have such clear image of, at best, quite distant future? (and we have decent idea of how to deal with "gravity problem"; structures we're building to date aren't of the scale justifying implementations)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    35. Re:Atmosphere by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Emulators are for pussies. Real men use a real C64 made new with retrobrite and hack on a SD card slot plus an ethernet port.

    36. Re:Atmosphere by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      I read a fairly extensive report on the Apollo Soyuz docking a few years ago, it seems the airlock tube was just for interfacing the hatches, during the docking both space craft operated at a common pressure with one working a fraction a one PSI over its maximum design pressure and one working at a fraction of a PSI below minimum. There was a lot of engineering concern over this out of range opertation.

    37. Re:Atmosphere by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

      Docking of course is just the first step. One also needs agreement on the atmosphere.

      and

      Fortunately this is no longer much of an issue. As a result of the Apollo 1 fire and the deaths of Grissom, White and Chaffee, American spacecraft (starting with the Space Shuttle) adopted the Soviet approach.

      So, problem solved?

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    38. Re:Atmosphere by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      When I was in high school I was bored one day in the library so I was flipping through the encyclopedia. Under nitroglycerine, there were reasonably detailed instructions for making it.

      One of the steps: stir carefully.

    39. Re:Atmosphere by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Afaict the big issue with a pure O2 atmosphere in an earthed launch spacecraft is the launch and reentry.

      If you launch and reenter on low pressure pure oxygen then you have to design your cabin to resist pressure in both directions.

      If you launch and reenter on atmospheric pressure (afaict this is what apollo did) pure oxygen then you have an atmosphere during launch and reentry that is a massive fire risk.

      If you launch and reenter on an oxygen/nitrogen mix then your gas handling just got a whole lot more complicated.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    40. Re:Atmosphere by Smivs · · Score: 1

      Docking computers are for pussies. Real men dock by hand. Now excuse me while I go searching for a version of Elite and an emulator to run it on.

      Elite is alive and well, and has evolved into what it should always have been. It's open-source and cross platform (Apple, Linux and that other thing). And the Blue Danube is still there.

      --
      Smivs on the intertubes!
    41. Re:Atmosphere by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      There go the next few days. Thanks a lot for this tip. You'll meet me again on /. after I am Elite...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    42. Re:Atmosphere by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      a version of Elite and an emulator to run it on.

      Jumping in before Alioth and his hardware Spectrum ethernet add-on get there - play Oolite (not the little calcareous stones, but the multigalactic tradeing/ fighting space game) more-or-less natively on your platform of choice.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    43. Re:Atmosphere by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I am very sorry for someone who confuses nitrogen gas and nitroglycerine.

      Johnny was a chemist. Johnny is no more. What he thought was N2 was C3H5N3O9...shit, that doesn't end in 4!

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    44. Re:Atmosphere by fishexe · · Score: 1

      They've done Everest, but didn't stay there for long.

      On the contrary, many are still there.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  2. Imagine by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    Imagine if *humans* didn't have standard docking ports.

    "Hey babe, you in the mood?"
    "Yes, but you have a TR-71 and I have a OML 3.0. We'll need to go to HumanShack and get a converter first."
    "Eh... never mind, let's just watch TV instead."

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Imagine by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Imagine if *humans* didn't have standard docking ports.

      "Hey babe, you in the mood?" "Yes, but you have a TR-71 and I have a OML 3.0. We'll need to go to HumanShack and get a converter first." "Eh... never mind, let's just watch TV instead."

      Well, one good thing about humans being wired like that is it would be a hell of a lot easier to find a virus, unlike today.

      Then again, people run around thinking they're not infected on their computers too...

    2. Re:Imagine by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      They're not standard, they're adaptable. That's why you can use the same probe on at least three different types of orifices.

    3. Re:Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Imagine if *humans* didn't have standard docking ports.

      Not all do. The popular meaning might be a bit different than what you were thinking.

      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking

    4. Re:Imagine by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      After all, you wouldn't want to be screwed by a bear.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WtftQ7AbEw#t=0m40s

    5. Re:Imagine by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Well I'm definitely not clicking THAT link.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  3. Re:In Communist China... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Open standards are a terrible way to go about this docking in space crap. What if someone finds an exploit to the docking procedure and is able to copy these docking procedures elsewhere?

    What about the engineers that came up with these standards? Why don't they get to benefit from their work by patenting them?

  4. So *that's* what Lennon meant? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Imagine all the people, living in harmony...

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  5. Re:In Communist China... by digitig · · Score: 3, Funny

    More likely, somebody will produce a proprietary "enhanced" version of the docking standard and claim that it is now the de-facto standard, and start charging fees to anybody who tries to dock with it.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  6. Re:In Communist China... by tenco · · Score: 1

    Good luck proofing that your proprietary docking standard is used in outer space.

  7. Feels like SF becoming slightly more real to me... by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1

    More accurately space SF. I dunno, but somehow the idea of a standardized docking port makes space travel feel more routine part of every day--which it should be.

    --
    The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
  8. Possible solution to make the docking port open... by c0lo · · Score: 1

    ... use the GPL v3 license.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  9. Only now? by scdeimos · · Score: 1

    Hard to believe that Sci-Fi has been poking about the issues of non-standard docking ports since the 1960's and the real world is just catching up 50 years later.

    1. Re:Only now? by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      I kind of doubt the aliens will be using our docking standard when they arrive.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
  10. It's about time by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Why wasn't this thought of years ago before the space station was built?

    1. Re:It's about time by cmowire · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was.

      This is fairly similar to the APAS docking adapter they created for the Apollo-Soyuz test program in the 70s.

      Now... why the ISS doesn't use APAS for all links and why the ISPRs (international standard payload racks) that everything in the US section is contained within won't fit inside an APAS docking tunnel... well... heh heh.

      --
      Gentoo Sucks
    2. Re:It's about time by gagol · · Score: 1

      Bureaucracy.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    3. Re:It's about time by sznupi · · Score: 1

      At least there were recently news about smaller racks; one of nice things with tech progress & miniaturization, I guess (and why the past rack standard was preferred to be rather big)

      And hey, Russians just used what they deemed sufficient (considering small sizes of resupply ships and how the big stuff goes up inside its own module) on a hardware that was long in the making - it's not like what is basically Mir 2 was meant to use ISPRs, or that they would have problems with implementing either of essentially their standards, if they wanted to (though they still did in one case, Zarya has both probe & cone and APAS - and who knows, maybe it was still built like that for docking with Buran).

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  11. Not true by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Currently the space station has three different types of incompatible docking ports"

    No, it has two. APAS , which is used by Shuttle, and Probe and Cone used by Soyuz, Progress, and ATV.
     
    The third system (CBM) is used by MPLM and HTV, and cannot be docked to. The difference is important - as the docking mechanism can take the full force of an approaching spacecraft, and berthing mechanisms cannot. To berth, one has to station keep with the station, and then be picked up and attached by the station's CANADARM-2 manipulator arm.

    The other important difference is size, APAS and Probe and Cone are limited to essentially man sized tunnels. CBM is a full sized door.

    The International Docking Standard actually already exists aboard the station - as APAS.

    1. Re:Not true by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Plus Chinese use APAS, apparently (in the linked article there's nothing about their docking mechanism, so I'm not sure why it was linked to...); even if this new version isn't strictly compatible, it certainly looks like another evolution of APAS (after quite a few already - original from RKK Energia used in Apollo-Soyuz, Buran version used by Shuttle in Mir dockings and its modification used currently, or the Orion one) / since the Chinese opted for it already, it shouldn't be too hard to get them aboard, so to speak.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  12. Watch the polarity guys by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Better build diode bridges into every connection! You wouldn't want an astronaut from the opposite side of the sun to try and dock with the ISS to cause a polarity inversion!

    1. Re:Watch the polarity guys by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember that after the attempted docking with Phoenix Ross said that there had been no polarity switch. Something else caused the whole thing to go FUBAR that was never really explained.

      I'm going to head over to Netflix and put it on my Q, this is going to bug me till I find out.

      _

    2. Re:Watch the polarity guys by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Since they thought everything was reversed, they re-wired the shuttle to invert the polarity. But everything was reversed except for the polarity.

      I don't even remember if it was a movie or an episode of the Twilight Zone or something.

    3. Re:Watch the polarity guys by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      "Doppelganger" for its original release in Europe but is known as "Journey to the far side of the Sun" everywhere else. There was an episode of the Outerlimits (original series) called "The Borderland" that had a related, though non space flight, plot.

      I added it to my Netflix Q right after posting last night so I can clear this up for my self.

      I clearly remember Ross saying that the "positive is still positive" but you may be right about how they wired the shuttle. I only remember that they talked about it wondering if they should reverse the polarity or not, not if they actually did.

      You would think somebody would have thought to just put a rectifier on the power connections, then it wouldn't have mattered what happened with the power. But then it wouldn't have made made for the dramatic ending if everything had gone right.

    4. Re:Watch the polarity guys by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Yet another proof that the selection of Netflix Canada sucks: Journey to the far side of the Sun is not available.

    5. Re:Watch the polarity guys by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      You could probably find a torrent.

      I should be getting the DVD by the end of the week so I'll let you know via /.

      Regards,

    6. Re:Watch the polarity guys by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      Just finished watching it. Fun to see the old non CGI model effects again.

      At 1:26:00 Ross and the Director are talking about sending another ship to the Phoenix and the Director does ask about the electrical polarity but they don't say what they end up doing.

      At 1:33:00 when the "Doppelganger" docks with Phoenix there is some kind of spark/arcing in the coupler between the two ships. It knocks out the Doppelgangers radio, vertical thrusters needed to land, and some other systems not specified. The spark/arc also causes the retros on the Phoenix to fire and de-orbit it. No details as to the cause of the arc are ever given.

      At 1:35:00 Ross says that he does not know what happened but that the instruments show that "... negative is still negative, positive is still positive." but since his radio is out no one on the ground hears him.

      Ross is able to make a controlled exit from the Phoenix but ground control has activated the auto approach system for the Doppelganger which apparently has no local manual override. During the approach Ross is trying to radio ground control telling them to release auto systems. When they finally do, because they think he is already dead, it is too late for Ross to do anything. The Doppelganger smashes into a building and then crashes into a big rocket which blows up everything, including all the evidence of the mirrored Earth.

      Cool side note, the last part of the movie is reversed from the first half, so the audience sees the world the way Ross does. When it was first released some film tech thought it was a mistake and "fixed it", but when they remastered it for the DVD they put it back the way it was meant to be.

      Hope you get a chance to watch it again for yourself. Regards, PGB

      _

  13. Hurry... by Snufu · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft is greasing palms to fastrack their open docking standard, dockx.

  14. Re:Uh Oh... by ThePeices · · Score: 1

    NASA doesn't use an archaic imperial system anymore, they use metric.

  15. Re:Space Nutters are so cute by Literaryhero · · Score: 1

    Apes never have tails, you insensitive clod!

  16. Re:In Communist China... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Its actually a reasonable question. The rebel alliance in Star Wars would have been better off without the docking adapters which allowed the imperial storm troopers to walk right into their spacecraft.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  17. Why now? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    So there wasn't one international standard until China comes along, and then it's a standard made by everyone but them. Doesn't that sound odd to anyone else?

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
    1. Re:Why now? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just goes to show you the standard of /. submissions; this new thing seems to be a version of APAS, which Chinese use.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  18. Re:In Communist China... by cinderellamanson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law I think I will go to school to become a space lawyer.

    --
    Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~
  19. What an utter waste of time by real+gumby · · Score: 1

    Who uses docking ports these days anyway? I want them to standardize the frigging batteries.

    Still, I'm not surprised the Chinese are the impetus for this. They got charging to standardize on mini-USB, after all.

    1. Re:What an utter waste of time by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Hope the Chinese jump onboard and start making them for cheap.

      I really want one installed on my car for some reason.

  20. Re:Possible solution to make the docking port open by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

    We don't want the docking port to be open. That would let the air out.

  21. Re:Feels like SF becoming slightly more real to me by a_hanso · · Score: 1

    What next? Universal helm control interfaces? Standard hailing frequencies? Translation matrices? Uniform plasma injectors sockets? Stun mode?

  22. Facilitates rescues? by OnePumpChump · · Score: 1

    More like facilitating BOARDINGS. The Chinese have the right idea, no fat stupid Americans are gonna be taking THEIR space stations!

  23. Re:Possible solution to make the docking port open by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Then protect it with a firewall.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  24. Standards by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

    The greatest thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.

  25. How fast? by AfroTrance · · Score: 1

    How many people per second can this new dock transfer? And does it support hot swapping?

  26. What about ET? by AlecC · · Score: 1

    We should be including this design in any broadcasts to stars, and on any plaques attached to future deep-space probes. Wouldn't it be a disaster if visiting aliens arrived and we couldn't dock with them?

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  27. common sense by DMather735 · · Score: 1

    "Hey guys, lets build a house!... now, you go and make a square door, you make yours a triangle and ill make mine a circle, and then we'll try and figure out how to get the furniture in..."

  28. Re:In Communist China... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    How will they retire if they can't collect royalties? What will their families use for food if they don't continue to get royalties until 100 years after the engineers are dead?

  29. Re:"Docking" by NevarMore · · Score: 1

    Its not homosexual according to http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=space+docking

  30. Thank goodness for Open Standards by shikaisi · · Score: 1

    Now I can finish building the home-brewed space vehicle I've been building in my garage in the full confidence that It will be able to dock with all the latest hardware up there. Phew! That's one less problem I need to worry about.

    --
    No left turn unstoned.
  31. Re:Feels like SF becoming slightly more real to me by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Not to mention, the red shirt for at least one member of the away team...

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  32. Re:Space Nutters are so cute by Philomage · · Score: 1

    I'm a Gibbon, you insensitive clod! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon

  33. Re:Space Nutters are so cute by Literaryhero · · Score: 1

    I'm a Gibbon, you insensitive clod! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon

    Gibbons don't have tails, you...oh nevermind.

  34. Re:In Communist China... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    What will their families use for food if they don't continue to get royalties until 100 years after the engineers are dead?

    Each other?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  35. Re:Space Nutters are so cute by Philomage · · Score: 1

    D'oh. I think you're right. What was I on yesterday? I should have just gone with the fact that my cousin had his tail (and extra thumbs) surgically removed at 1 year of age to disprove "Apes never have tails" when, in fact, some humans do have tails.

  36. Re:In Communist China... by fishexe · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law I think I will go to school to become a space lawyer.

    I hear the pay is good, but the relocation is a pain.

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  37. But what about RadioShack by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    I get all my adapters at RS. Why should an international standard remove this small but profitable market from one small Company.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  38. Re:In Communist China... by cinderellamanson · · Score: 1

    Solar system. It's - "If there's one thing this Solar System needs it's more lawyers."

    --
    Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~
  39. Re:In Communist China... by cinderellamanson · · Score: 1

    Yes, I think the first thing I will do is sue earth for compensation.

    --
    Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~