NASA Purchases $19M Russian Space Toilet 245
Gary writes "NASA has paid $19 million for a Russian-built international space station toilet system. The toilet system, similar to the one already in use in the station's Zvezda Service Module, is scheduled to arrive at the space station in 2008 and will offer more privacy for a crew expected to double from three to six by 2009. The space station toilet physically resembles those used on Earth, except it has leg restraints and thigh bars to keep astronauts and cosmonauts from floating away. NASA says purchasing the multi million dollar toilet is a bargain compared to developing one from scratch."
Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
*drum fill*
I'm here all week!
oblig. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
haha.. no but seriously, when it's phrased like that it sounds like one hell of a party.
Re: (Score:2)
But but but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But but but (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's not that we really needed the toilets, it's that we didn't want this advanced Russian toilet technology falling into the hands of the black market, or worse, terrorists. Imagine the kinds of dirty bombs that could be produced by a sufficiently motivated criminal organization using this Russian toilet technology. The chemical and biological implications of such a device falling into evil hands is enough to warrant funneling $19 million per toilet to the cash-strapped Russia
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The astronauts would like some modern, indoor plumbing.
After all, there's nothing worse than making your way through a dark space station to the docked shuttle when you're desperate for a wazz and then opening the wrong airlock and finding yourself drifting off through space in nothing but your rocketship jammies!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only explanation I can come up with is that the bureaucracy at NASA doesn't want people to know how thoroug
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:But but but (Score:5, Informative)
The Russian system is actually a full sewage system, and turns the urine back into drinking water. That saves launch costs at ~20,000/kgon the water. With 3-6 astronauts up there it pays to do this.
And it's unlikely that NASA could do this, the R&D alone would be more than that, and this is a full working toilet/waste reclaimation system.
Dispose? (Score:2)
pee into drinkable water (Score:2)
I didn't believe it in Waterworld, I certainly don't believe it now.
Re:But but but (Score:5, Informative)
NASA had developed a recycling toilet back in the 1990's for use on the space station, but compared to the Russian model, it sucked... or didn't properly suck, depending on your point of view. The Russian design is far more efficient, costs less and has the notable advantage of being tested and refined over the course of 20 years of service on Mir and Salyut stations.
An editorial comment on NASA vs. the Russian space agency:
NASA is run by retired astronauts, RSA is run by military leaders appointed by the State. Astronauts tend to view everything as human-centric (on manned missions), while the Russian leaders tend to look at the mission first and the crew second. Thus NASA has a safety-first mindset and one that puts the comfort of the crew (within reason) before efficiency.
When NASA was developing the space toilet in the 80's, they came up with a design similar to the one the Russians had been using on their space stations for almost 20 years. It involved hoses and baggies. Presented to an astronaut advisory board (think "focus group"), the male astronaut reaction was almost universally "I ain't stickin' my boys in no hose!" and the design was scrapped in favor of a brutally inefficient design involving membranes, baffles and a gentle pressure differential.
Faced with similar reaction in the Russian (then Soviet) cosmonauts, one can only imagine that the answer was along the lines of "You will stick what we tell you to stick where we tell you to stick it, Comrade!"
Re: (Score:2)
Faced with similar reaction in the Russian (then Soviet) cosmonauts, one can only imagine that the answer was along the lines of "You will stick what we tell you to stick where we tell you to stick it, Comrade!"
That's not true. The Soviets provided free choice. You were free to choose which ear the bullet came in, for example ;)
(As an aside, I can't believe I made it this far down into the comments and not one In Soviet Russia... joke has appeared yet)
Here you go (Score:2)
If you need restraints... (Score:4, Funny)
1) Is there some sort of mechanism to ensure that Mr. Hanky the poo goes into the bowl?
2) Can male astronauts pee standing up in this toilet?
Cheers!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
2) No.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What happens when the shit hits the fan?
Re: (Score:2)
2) Tubes (Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It seems to me you'd want to minimise leakage. On earth spattering the surroundings is an annoyance [1], in space it can be catastrophic. Why take the chance?
1: that said, I've never understood why so many men insist on peeing standing up, when it's cleaner, more comfortable and doesn't cost more time to sit down.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you need restraints... (Score:5, Funny)
It seems to me you'd want to minimise leakage. On earth spattering the surroundings is an annoyance [1], in space it can be catastrophic. Why take the chance?
1: that said, I've never understood why so many men insist on peeing standing up, when it's cleaner, more comfortable and doesn't cost more time to sit down.
It's just easier and quicker to aim properly.
'course, you being female, I should have expected you not to understand.
To speak on sitting down being "cleaner". I never have a problem with a messy toilet/floor. I hate it when I got into the bathroom at work, walk up to the urinal, and have to step around those lazy asses pee dribbles. It's like they can't be bothered to hang their junk two more inches closer to the bowl. I know if I can do it, they ought to be able to. At home, I aim at the bowl, not the seat, so I don't have problems there either. I don't know what it is with some guys. Sometimes I think they should be *required* to just go outside.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to ask-- are you circumcised?
I have this issue when standing on occasion where the urine, when first coming out, will decide to shoot out the side, or come out in a fan, much like water will when using a cloth hose. This is why I feel it is cleaner to sit when using a toilet. I do stand if there is a urinal to use, as they have sides that come out and solve that issue.
I've mentioned this issue in such a "sit or stand" discussion before, and had people act incredulous at the idea of it not immediately coming out straight, and it occurred to me that maybe it's because I don't have any foreskin, and people with foreskin don't have this issue for some reason.
I am butchered, but have never once had a problem with urine "coming out the side". I usually hear of such issues from in tact guys, and even then, I tell them to pull their foreskin back if it is a problem. I wasn't circumcised until age 7 (or so, I don't recall *exactly*), and I never had a problem with a "crooked stream".
As to why you would have a "crooked stream", I couldn't tell you. I can only tell you that in my 23 years of being circumcised, I've never had any issues in that department (though I
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Woman, you're wrong on all three counts of cleanliness, comfortability, and time. Let me explain to you a little about the world of men.
1) It's not cleaner for *US* to sit down on a dirty toilet and make contact between the toilet and our ass.
- Regarding number one - you've obviously never seen the toilets in a mens public bathroom. If you were a
Re: (Score:2)
And you've obviously never been in a female public bathroom. In my career I've had to clean the public restrooms in a couple restraunts and stores. Both sides.
The female side was almost always dirtier than the mens room. Except for the occasional degenerate occasion, which the manager had to clean up one time because I refused. No, I didn't get fired. I was considered a 'great worker', mostly because I'd show up on
Re: (Score:2)
Forced air - and the high cost is because in space you really want to make sure it doesn't hit the fan.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Can male astronauts pee standing up in this toilet?
1.) Yes, toilet itself has suction
2.) Yes suction tube placed over phalis to collect the fluid.
Re: (Score:2)
And in a related article, thousands of BDSM & scat fetishists rejoyced.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
$19 million for a toilet?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(Where are all the "In Soviet Russia..." jokes?)
Resembles? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you notice (Score:2, Redundant)
Also i wonder why it wasn't discussed in the article why the toilet designed for the Space shuttle couldn't be used. I'd hazard a guess that it is an integration issue, the Russian one is designed for integration into a space stations systems, whereas the shuttle one is designed to standalone.
Kind of like you have a different toilet in your house vs the one in a camper van.
Can someone be more informative?
Re: (Score:2)
7th grade science project (Score:2)
I created a zero gravity shitter for my 7th grade science project. I would have sold it to them for half that price.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worth it IMO (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus, with this system very similar to the Russian module, there's no need for new training (and yes, you do need training to use a space toilet).
Finally--sorry to be indelicate--but in zero gravity, I'd say it's worth the $19M to avoid small droplets of urine end up in the electronics or worse, a small piece of poo float into your Tang.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be a bargain (Score:5, Funny)
you give me half that much money... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to say. Using a generous $1M = 10 man-years of effort (at about $100/man-year) this means you would spend that much money on only 190 man-years. The question is, how many man-years to design, prototype, test, and build a production version of this?
190 man-years seems like a lot to me though. It gets worse if you use "world average" cost of a man year, which is closer to $20k instead of $100k.
Converting everything to man-years isn't always the best way to look at costs, but it is a handy back-o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Field test data. Have you priced a 2 week field test run lately?
Re: (Score:2)
2008: A Toilet Odyssey (Score:2, Funny)
Zvezda HAL: Affirmative, Dmitriy, I read you.
Dmitriy Bowman: Open the toilet leg restraints, Zvezda HAL.
Zvezda HAL: I'm sorry Dmitriy, I'm afraid I can't do that. I'm going to flush you.
Dmitriy Bowman: What's the problem? You're really pissing me off.
Zvezda HAL: I think you know what the stinking problem is just as well as I do.
Dmitriy Bowman: What are you talking about, Zvezda HAL? This is is a shitty situation.
Zvezda HAL: This mission is too imp
A bargain? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I see, you've been working for NASA?"
"Yes, I was a designer."
"Oh, design, great, really great. Rocket? Propulsion? Guidance?"
"Erh... no... more like
"Plumbing?"
"Yeah, I made the loo."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But maybe that's exactly why they didn't put it up as a "layman commission". I mean, a failed robot arm means that one experiment out of a number fails. But a loo backing up in space surely cancels all of them.
Physical toilet or IP rights? (Score:2)
Because if so, I expect loyal Slashdotters to be claiming that this is patent madness, and to start wearing t-shirts with the plans for these toilets on them, and to start launching tirades against the racketeering space plumbing business.
Too Expensive For Home Use (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
but where... (Score:4, Funny)
More privacy? (Score:2)
It appears there is little privacy left when they drink each others urine.
Don't underestimate the need (Score:5, Interesting)
Weirdest. Topic. Ever.
Josh
Grow strength from your pain (Score:2)
eBay (Score:2)
Stop it with the stupid puns! (Score:2, Funny)
I think we should log a complaint against them for wiping away our limited budget on such things. But please people, this is nothing to make silly puns about -- afterall we're the ones getting pinched, and the Russians are getting flush with cash. I hope the media lights a match under this story. We need to clear the air.
All they need is decent suction (Score:2)
They just need to figure out some way of creating a vacuum up there in space....
Re: (Score:2)
What about the up or down lid controversy? (Score:4, Funny)
It gets worse (Score:2)
Uh oh (Score:2, Funny)
The space station toilet physically resembles those used on Earth, except it has leg restraints and thigh bars to keep astronauts and cosmonauts from floating away. Fans suck waste into the commode.
Astronaut 1: Uh oh
Cosmonaut 1: What happened?
Astronaut 1: The shit hit the fan
Obligatory (Score:2)
BIGELOW (Score:2)
Boldly going (Score:5, Funny)
In other news... (Score:2)
open the pod bay doors HAL (Score:2)
What about "side benefits"? (Score:2)
There were all sorts of additional developments, out of the necessity of creating new materials for the requirements of space flight that also had good applications down here on earth.
Sure, today all we want is immediately applicable results. We want a cost/benefit calculation. Another thing that's wrong with today's R&D efforts. They just see
In Soviet Russia.... (Score:2)
too obvious not to be said I suppose
Title is 25% off (Score:2)
It's still way more accurate than most science reporting, but it was still about 27% high.
Whirring fan blades below (Score:3, Funny)
apologies (Score:2)
* ducks *
The price is justified (Score:2)
Re:Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see -
Project Mercury Atronauts - Shepherd had to piss in is suit on the launch pad - no catheter, no "adult diapers" ...
Gemini Astronauts - baggies with adhesive rims - strap it around your arse and take a dump, then "brown-bag it".
Apollo - baggies in the CM, diapers in the LEM.
$19 million to keep the crap and piss from floating all over the place - a lot cheaper than a "baggie failure", and a lot less time-consuming. Time is one thing that's at a premium - the $19 mill.saves them more than it costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Project Mercury Atronauts - Shepherd had to piss in is suit on the launch pad - no catheter, no "adult diapers" ...
Gemini Astronauts - baggies with adhesive rims - strap it around your arse and take a dump, then "brown-bag it".
Apollo - baggies in the CM, diapers in the LEM.
You forgot one:
Project Drive-from-Texas-to-Orlando-to-kidnap-a-woman-inte rested-in-your-guy [wikipedia.org] - diapers
At $19 million, it's cheaper than launching water (Score:2)
Our toilets are also very, very simple. For $100, you get a shiny, but relatively heavy ceramic bowl with a couple simple levers, one valve, and a siphon (note that conventional siphons don't work in space). It uses about 5 kg of water per flush, and all the waste flows downhil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think about it, a litre of water made from urine saves $10,000/kg in launch costs. The system will quickly pay for itself with 3-6 astronauts up there.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also incredibly naive to think that if the money wasn't spent on this it would be spent on housing. It would probably get spent on Iraq.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
See here: Space Pen [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)