🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4400@drivax.DRI> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>A month or so ago I made the heretical statement that the USA ask for
>technical specs for Soviet docking and fastening interfaces and adopt them 
>as an international standard.   Nobody commented on this.  On second
>thought, though, there a third set of standards, those used by the ESA.
>...Is there any move now to standardize
>... user-interface criteria, so that it's possible to build one probe
>and (in theory) fly it on whatever carrier has the best deal/time frame/
>service?  

Ha ha.  Ho ho.  You really think there are standards within NASA and ESA?
It is to laugh, pretty much.  The only place where anything is standardized
is in places where multiple interchangeable parts absolutely have to exist,
notably modules for space stations.  It's not a question of reconciling
three standards, it's a question of reconciling dozens.

On the specific question of man-capable docking ports, things aren't so
bad.  There are only two or three standards for that.  The US space
station standard is probably the best for the users, although it's not
ideal for the vehicle designers (it's big).

There has been talk of international standards for manned-spacecraft
docking ports, but so far it's all just talk.

>It seems pointless to establish three separate sets of standards for 
>simple matters that will become very important to clients building 
>commercial space packages - different types of onboard power, different
>docking hardware, oddball connections, materials with dissimilar ratings
>and physical characteristics

Things like power may be hopelessly irreconcilable.  The US is hell-bent
on its insane 20kHz power system for its space station, and nobody in
their right mind will adopt that.  Certainly the Soviets won't; they
prefer cheap hardware that works.
-- 
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu