<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Boom-Rendezvous: A Path Not-Yet Taken</title>
	<atom:link href="http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/</link>
	<description>Random Musings from the Warped Minds of Jonathan Goff, Ken Murphy, John Hare, and Kirk Sorensen</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:26:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Phoenix</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-11200</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Phoenix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 04:20:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-11200</guid>
		<description>As long as we&#039;re being inventive, I don&#039;t see why we need all of the links from the two spacecraft to be booms of similar type.

The boom is at least semi-rigid in 6 DOF (perhaps least so in torsion around its axis, at least for STEM types). But even with a lightweight connector on the end, you won&#039;t be able to move it laterally very quickly once you have it out to 100 meters, and stopping its whip oscillations would be an interesting control problem.

So it looks to me like you want one long stiff boom (from one side only) which can be shot toward the approximate location of the target spacecraft. Then, you want a much lighter-weight and shorter boom from the target spacecraft. Once contact is made between the lightweight boom and the stiff boom, the lightweight boom can be retracted all the way to its spacecraft, thus making a stiff connection between the stiff boom and the target spacecraft.

(In an extreme version of this, the lightweight booms wouldn&#039;t be booms at all, but ropes with free-flying remote-controlled microthruster pods. But I digress.)

If the stiff boom is on-orbit permanently, then its length does not need to be variable. It can simply be left extended, pushed back and forth through a gimbaled ring for 3DOF positioning. At that point, you can think about using something like NASA&#039;s SAILMAST for the boom: http://nmp.nasa.gov/st8/tech/sailmast_tech1.html 

Sailmast is impressive: very stiff in 6 DOF, and 35 grams per meter. If you had a direct spacecraft-to-spacecraft connection with Sailmast, you probably would not need a second boom. Which is good, because if you have trouble stopping relative rotation with one boom, you&#039;ll probably have even trouble with two similar booms. Once you have two booms connected, if you don&#039;t stop rotation within the first half-spin, then the booms will twist up in a very weak and probably destructive configuration. (Don&#039;t cross the booms!)

A permanently-extended boom would, of course, extend beyond the docking adapter, but it wouldn&#039;t need a whole lot of angular room to swing in. Or, it looks like a partially-deployed Sailmast is stiff for all but the last meter or so, so you might be able to extend and retract it usefully, with the force-transfer points a meter from the coil, as long as you don&#039;t extend it fully and let it snap into its locked-extended configuration.

A separate question: I don&#039;t understand why it would be useful for the main tether to be able to pull with more force than it can push. If you start the spacecraft moving with a forceful pull, you&#039;d better be able to stop them with a forceful push. In theory, you could pull hard on a long boom, then wait till it got close, and when the boom was short enough to be stiff, give it a hard push to stop it. But that seems overly risky. (I&#039;m remembering the line from Heinlein&#039;s _The Rolling Stones_: &quot;He started it with a pull; he thought he could stop it with a shove. They had to amputate both his legs, but they saved his life.&quot;)

Chris</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As long as we&#8217;re being inventive, I don&#8217;t see why we need all of the links from the two spacecraft to be booms of similar type.</p>
<p>The boom is at least semi-rigid in 6 DOF (perhaps least so in torsion around its axis, at least for STEM types). But even with a lightweight connector on the end, you won&#8217;t be able to move it laterally very quickly once you have it out to 100 meters, and stopping its whip oscillations would be an interesting control problem.</p>
<p>So it looks to me like you want one long stiff boom (from one side only) which can be shot toward the approximate location of the target spacecraft. Then, you want a much lighter-weight and shorter boom from the target spacecraft. Once contact is made between the lightweight boom and the stiff boom, the lightweight boom can be retracted all the way to its spacecraft, thus making a stiff connection between the stiff boom and the target spacecraft.</p>
<p>(In an extreme version of this, the lightweight booms wouldn&#8217;t be booms at all, but ropes with free-flying remote-controlled microthruster pods. But I digress.)</p>
<p>If the stiff boom is on-orbit permanently, then its length does not need to be variable. It can simply be left extended, pushed back and forth through a gimbaled ring for 3DOF positioning. At that point, you can think about using something like NASA&#8217;s SAILMAST for the boom: <a href="http://nmp.nasa.gov/st8/tech/sailmast_tech1.html" rel="nofollow">http://nmp.nasa.gov/st8/tech/sailmast_tech1.html</a> </p>
<p>Sailmast is impressive: very stiff in 6 DOF, and 35 grams per meter. If you had a direct spacecraft-to-spacecraft connection with Sailmast, you probably would not need a second boom. Which is good, because if you have trouble stopping relative rotation with one boom, you&#8217;ll probably have even trouble with two similar booms. Once you have two booms connected, if you don&#8217;t stop rotation within the first half-spin, then the booms will twist up in a very weak and probably destructive configuration. (Don&#8217;t cross the booms!)</p>
<p>A permanently-extended boom would, of course, extend beyond the docking adapter, but it wouldn&#8217;t need a whole lot of angular room to swing in. Or, it looks like a partially-deployed Sailmast is stiff for all but the last meter or so, so you might be able to extend and retract it usefully, with the force-transfer points a meter from the coil, as long as you don&#8217;t extend it fully and let it snap into its locked-extended configuration.</p>
<p>A separate question: I don&#8217;t understand why it would be useful for the main tether to be able to pull with more force than it can push. If you start the spacecraft moving with a forceful pull, you&#8217;d better be able to stop them with a forceful push. In theory, you could pull hard on a long boom, then wait till it got close, and when the boom was short enough to be stiff, give it a hard push to stop it. But that seems overly risky. (I&#8217;m remembering the line from Heinlein&#8217;s _The Rolling Stones_: &#8220;He started it with a pull; he thought he could stop it with a shove. They had to amputate both his legs, but they saved his life.&#8221;)</p>
<p>Chris</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sprint &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Electroadhesive “Sticky Boom” Rendezvous (An Introduction and &#8230;</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-10747</link>
		<dc:creator>Sprint &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Electroadhesive “Sticky Boom” Rendezvous (An Introduction and &#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 13:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-10747</guid>
		<description>[...] a display provides some some-more details, a simple thought was that by mixing Kirk Sorensen’s “Boom Rendezvous” judgment with SRI’s Electrostatic Adhesion technology, we were means to come adult with a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a display provides some some-more details, a simple thought was that by mixing Kirk Sorensen’s “Boom Rendezvous” judgment with SRI’s Electrostatic Adhesion technology, we were means to come adult with a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Electroadhesive &#8220;Sticky Boom&#8221; Rendezvous (An Introduction)</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-10743</link>
		<dc:creator>Electroadhesive &#8220;Sticky Boom&#8221; Rendezvous (An Introduction)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 03:52:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-10743</guid>
		<description>[...] provides some more details, the basic idea was that by combining Kirk Sorensen&#8217;s &#8220;Boom Rendezvous&#8221; concept with SRI&#8217;s Electrostatic Adhesion technology, we were able to come up with a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] provides some more details, the basic idea was that by combining Kirk Sorensen&#8217;s &#8220;Boom Rendezvous&#8221; concept with SRI&#8217;s Electrostatic Adhesion technology, we were able to come up with a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Wallace</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-8174</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Wallace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 04:14:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-8174</guid>
		<description>This reminds me generally of a &quot;tri-stirrup&quot; arrangement I came up with for a specialized neutral bouyancy docking mechanism.  The idea was to be able to stick a single &quot;toe&quot; in a frustrum of a triangular pyramid stirrup -- with three of the stirrups arrayed 120 degrees apart around the central docking port.

As far as the distal probe ends of the booms are concerned -- you end up thinking about male-vs.-female geometry questions and whether you want &quot;keyed&quot; geometries so things can mate in only one orientation or attitude.

It occurs to me that you may want a ferro-magnetic fluid clutch/brake on a volumes of revolution geometry male/female pair of parts for the distal end of the first boom pair -- to dampen torques in a gradual process controlled by the receiving &quot;dockee&#039;s&quot; docking operations attitude control computer.  Once the relative rates of rotation have been dampened to a minimum through the single made rotary joint -- the second boom can be used to complete the &quot;summation&quot; of the combined inertias -- with only a small residual inertial delta for the dockee attitude control to deal with.

This definitely is a promising alternative to what is effectively 50-year-old SOP for rendezvous and docking -- if for no other reason than the kinetic physics of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This reminds me generally of a &#8220;tri-stirrup&#8221; arrangement I came up with for a specialized neutral bouyancy docking mechanism.  The idea was to be able to stick a single &#8220;toe&#8221; in a frustrum of a triangular pyramid stirrup &#8212; with three of the stirrups arrayed 120 degrees apart around the central docking port.</p>
<p>As far as the distal probe ends of the booms are concerned &#8212; you end up thinking about male-vs.-female geometry questions and whether you want &#8220;keyed&#8221; geometries so things can mate in only one orientation or attitude.</p>
<p>It occurs to me that you may want a ferro-magnetic fluid clutch/brake on a volumes of revolution geometry male/female pair of parts for the distal end of the first boom pair &#8212; to dampen torques in a gradual process controlled by the receiving &#8220;dockee&#8217;s&#8221; docking operations attitude control computer.  Once the relative rates of rotation have been dampened to a minimum through the single made rotary joint &#8212; the second boom can be used to complete the &#8220;summation&#8221; of the combined inertias &#8212; with only a small residual inertial delta for the dockee attitude control to deal with.</p>
<p>This definitely is a promising alternative to what is effectively 50-year-old SOP for rendezvous and docking &#8212; if for no other reason than the kinetic physics of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Minus 2D Boom Rendezvous &#171; Gravity Loss</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-6479</link>
		<dc:creator>Minus 2D Boom Rendezvous &#171; Gravity Loss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:14:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-6479</guid>
		<description>[...] 2009.12.03 by gravityloss    I always had a different idea compared to the one Jon and Kirk posted, (Kirk Sorensen is now a contributor at Jon Goff&#8217;s place, I&#8217;m afraid having such top [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 2009.12.03 by gravityloss    I always had a different idea compared to the one Jon and Kirk posted, (Kirk Sorensen is now a contributor at Jon Goff&#8217;s place, I&#8217;m afraid having such top [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A_M_Swallow</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-6366</link>
		<dc:creator>A_M_Swallow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-6366</guid>
		<description>If the system is symmetrical the first pair of probes could be connectors attached to cables on winches.  They would bring the 
two spaceships close together.  Solid booms can then be used for accurate alignment and to stop unwanted movements, particularly roll.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the system is symmetrical the first pair of probes could be connectors attached to cables on winches.  They would bring the<br />
two spaceships close together.  Solid booms can then be used for accurate alignment and to stop unwanted movements, particularly roll.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Goff</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-6365</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Goff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:42:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-6365</guid>
		<description>AM,
Part of the point of boom rendezvous is to avoid needing to use RCS near the other spacecraft, so you don&#039;t have to worry about plume impingement.  Adding a third boom isn&#039;t that big of a deal.  It doesn&#039;t have to be anywhere near as long as the first boom.  You could probably get away with the first boom set being in the 50-100m, and the 2nd and 3rd being only in the 5-20m range.

~Jon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AM,<br />
Part of the point of boom rendezvous is to avoid needing to use RCS near the other spacecraft, so you don&#8217;t have to worry about plume impingement.  Adding a third boom isn&#8217;t that big of a deal.  It doesn&#8217;t have to be anywhere near as long as the first boom.  You could probably get away with the first boom set being in the 50-100m, and the 2nd and 3rd being only in the 5-20m range.</p>
<p>~Jon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A_M_Swallow</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-6364</link>
		<dc:creator>A_M_Swallow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-6364</guid>
		<description>A single probe plus an RCS to rotate the spacecraft may be sufficient.  You only need one fishing line and one hook when catching a fish.

The probe firing mechanism may need to move left-to-right and up-and-down.  If the probe attaches to the side of the hatch a method of performing the final aligning the two spacecraft will be needed.  It only has to work over say the last 6 inches, it can use a conventional electric motor but may need to rotate the spacecraft through +/- 180 degrees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A single probe plus an RCS to rotate the spacecraft may be sufficient.  You only need one fishing line and one hook when catching a fish.</p>
<p>The probe firing mechanism may need to move left-to-right and up-and-down.  If the probe attaches to the side of the hatch a method of performing the final aligning the two spacecraft will be needed.  It only has to work over say the last 6 inches, it can use a conventional electric motor but may need to rotate the spacecraft through +/- 180 degrees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Goff</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-6361</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Goff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:35:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-6361</guid>
		<description>Tim,
Honestly I&#039;m not entirely sure.  Three sounds right, but there may be some trickiness that would give it to you with two and the right kind of gimbal or camfield joint system on both ends.  Not sure.

~Jon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim,<br />
Honestly I&#8217;m not entirely sure.  Three sounds right, but there may be some trickiness that would give it to you with two and the right kind of gimbal or camfield joint system on both ends.  Not sure.</p>
<p>~Jon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/11/boom-rendezvous-a-path-not-yet-taken/comment-page-1/#comment-6357</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:28:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1262#comment-6357</guid>
		<description>I suspect you&#039;d need at least three booms for complete control, otherwise the arriving vehicle could still pivot about a pitch/yaw axis. I noticed that multiple booms are mentioned in the paper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I suspect you&#8217;d need at least three booms for complete control, otherwise the arriving vehicle could still pivot about a pitch/yaw axis. I noticed that multiple booms are mentioned in the paper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

