Figure 1.17 [left]. Docking device with a flexible rod. 1. lunar module; 2. flexible rod with cable; 3. additional latches; 4. docking mechanism; 5. command module; 6. mechanism to adjust rod. Figure 1.18 [right]. “Ring and cone” docking device. 1. shock absorbers; 2. ring; 3. head of rod; 4. latches. Actual full-scale models were created for experimental evaluation, and these were subjected to testing. Analysis of the docking mechanism with a flexible connection, which considered the results of experiments and modeling, revealed a number of significant drawbacks. In contrast to devices with a shock absorbing connection, in which relative motions were limited by the docking mechanism, and in which the control system could be turned off after contact, devices with a flexible connection required the control system to operate after linkage. The control system had to maintain the relative position of the spacecraft after linkage and during the coupling process, without substantial deviations or damage to the flexible connection due to mutual perturbations. The control of orientation and motion in one or both spacecraft with a flexible connection between them is, in principle, a more complex task than their autonomous control. It was necessary, as before, to measure the relative position of the spacecraft. The equipment was made more complex, as were the algorithms and procedures for piloting, and the docking time and consumption of fuel were increased. In accordance with NASA requirements, the comparative analysis also examined a device designed on the basis of the Gemini docking device. The
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==