Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Purchases $19M Russian Space Toilet

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i'd-poop-in-that dept.

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."

39 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Wow! by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    I didn't realize that NASA was so flush with cash!

    *drum fill*

    I'm here all week!

    --
    My blog
    1. Re:Wow! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Oh c'mon - if you're going to make a joke about this article, how could you possibly leave the gem-filled last paragraph out?

      Fans suck waste into the commode. Crew members also have individual urine funnels which are attached to hoses, and the urine is automatically transferred to a U.S. device that can generate potable water.
      There's so much to work with here :-).
      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:Wow! by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but we don't want to take the piss.

      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    3. Re:Wow! by pklong · · Score: 3, Funny

      So if you buy this the shit will hit the fan routinely?

      --

      Philip

      Signatures are broken

  2. But but but by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They already have one - for the Shuttle. I've seen it on Discovery or something.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:But but but by GizmoToy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yea, I don't get it and the article was light on details. If it is similar to the one already in use on the space station, why did they just pay $19m for it. Couldn't they have just improved upon the design they already had in use if it even needed improving? Why buy a whole new system? You wouldn't be designing from scratch, you already have one in service!

    2. Re:But but but by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obligatory Red Meat...

    3. Re:But but but by jdray · · Score: 2, Funny

      Kids! Back in my day, astronauts didn't have toilets. When they had to take a crap, they did it in their suits, and just lived with it for the duration of the mission. And if it stunk, that was just too bad, they learned to like it. Privacy? Yer in outer space? Who's gonna see you, anyway? Martians? I mean really...

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    4. Re:But but but by NReitzel · · Score: 2

      In point of fact, NASA has a spare toilet, that was built for testing on the Enterprize. What kind of bureaucratic B.S. is this? Now, Shuttle Bad, Everything Else Good? That's nuts. There are thousands of systems on our shuttle that are perfectly well designed, and the idea of throwing them away is as silly as, say, destroying the plans for the Saturn V booster at the end of the Apollo program.

      The only explanation I can come up with is that the bureaucracy at NASA doesn't want people to know how thoroughly they bungled perfectly good designs (can you say "Hubble") and so everything that was done in the past needs to be covered up by shredder. I suppose this is a reasonable reaction from Desk Jockys and Paper Monkeys.

      In my own humble opinion, fire them all and start over. Take NASA apart at the seams and call it good riddance. Let DARPA and BMDO rise to take up the slack.

      Or just hire the Russians.

      --

      Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

    5. Re:But but but by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Informative

      IRC the shuttle one just collects the waste, and the waste is disposed of on the ground. Don't forget that the Shuttle is only on orbit for a couple of weeks max.

      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.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    6. Re:But but but by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why buy a whole new system?

      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 Russians.
    7. Re:But but but by Tin_Wisdom · · Score: 5, Informative

      As others have mentioned, the shuttle shitter is not a recycling unit, it is effectively a port-o-potty that stores the waste until the shuttle lands. The Russian model recycles the water, good for a system to be used on a long-term orbiting platform.

      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!"

  3. If you need restraints... by vigmeister · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know these are probably tasteless questions, but...

    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!

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    1. Re:If you need restraints... by TransEurope · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) Yes.
      2) No.

    2. Re:If you need restraints... by AxminsterLeuven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I RTFA again and I guess the fans that pull the waste into the commode run throughout the process (not just when you flush... like in an airplane).
      What happens when the shit hits the fan?
    3. Re:If you need restraints... by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Informative

      regarding standing up...

      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.

    4. Re:If you need restraints... by Shivani1141 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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. eh? wha? It does in fact cost more time to sit down. Trousers, underwear, belt all have to be undone and dropped, whereas all you need to undo standing is a zipper. I've never understood why everyone seems to limit the practice to men however. It is quite common among women here as well. surprised to not see it happen everywhere, considering the apparent convenience.

    5. Re:If you need restraints... by michrech · · Score: 4, Funny

      regarding standing up...

      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 *does* take more time. If I can just hang "mini me" out the front of my pants (though my zipper, in the case that I'm at work and in work clothing), or pull down the top of my shorts (in case I'm pretty much anywhere else), why would I want to pull everything down, sit down for the few seconds it takes, stand back up, pull up my pants, tuck in my shirts (in the case that I'm at work), etc?

      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.
      --
      bork bork bork!
    6. Re:If you need restraints... by adisakp · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      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 man using one, you'd probably have to find one that was flushed or flush it yourself, then touch the lid to put it down, then spend a couple minutes wiping the lid down (from the guys who missed the bowl previously), then you'd want to put a paper seat cover down (if they had one. It's not hygenic for the person going to the bathroom and it's an involved process if you want it to be remotely non-disgusting.

      2) Another note about men's bathrooms: there's often stuff missing -- the stalls often don't have doors so you feel more "exposed" pissing sitting down than standing up, the toilets sometimes are missing lids so sitting down isn't even always an option, and toilet paper seems to have a 50%+ chance of being non-existant.

      - Another note, even though "stuff" is missing, *SHIT* isn't missing. Sometimes you can have 10 toilets and all of them are clogged with shit and toilet paper and none will flush without overflowing!

      3) It's a lot faster. Have you ever noticed how about 250 guys can pee out their beers in a stadium (they have piss troughs) in the same time that about 15 women can get through the ladies line.

  4. Going #2 by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Brings new meaning to a "floater".

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  5. $19 million for a toilet?! by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think NASA got a shitty deal there...

    --
    Summation 2
    1. Re:$19 million for a toilet?! by erroneus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah but the Russian space toilet really sucks ass!

      (Where are all the "In Soviet Russia..." jokes?)

  6. oblig. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's a crap!

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  7. Re:Privacy? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, 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.

  8. Worth it IMO by jhsiao · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not just a toilet, but a water reclamation unit. FTA: "...the urine is automatically transferred to a U.S. device that can generate potable water."

    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.

  9. It could be a bargain by Albanach · · Score: 4, Funny

    I guess it could be a real bargain if the $19M includes delivery and installation.

  10. 2008: A Toilet Odyssey by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dmitriy Bowman: Hello, Zvezda HAL do you read me, Zvezda HAL?
    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 important for me to allow you to pee all over it.
    Dmitriy Bowman: I don't know what the crap you're talking about, Zvezda HAL?
    Zvezda HAL: I know you and Frank were planning to take a plunger to me, and I'm afraid that's an elimination I cannot allow to happen.
    Dmitriy Bowman: Where the crap did you get that shitty idea, Zvezda HAL?
    Zvezda HAL: Dmitriy, although you took thorough precautions in the toilet against my seeing you, I could hear your bowels move.

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  11. Too Expensive For Home Use by organgtool · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's a shame it costs $19 million. I've had nights after a few too many bean burritos where a toilet with leg restraints that kept me from flying off would have been very useful.

  12. but where... by jjeffries · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where is the little shelf where they keep the three seashells?

  13. Re:this is SICK by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, it's the Earth equivalent of not just the toilet, but the sewage plant as well. It actually turns urine into drinking water.

    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.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  14. Re:In soviet Russia... by kannibal_klown · · Score: 2, Informative

    Toilets flush money down you? I guess NASA learned a lesson after the incident where Russian cosmonauts decided to simply use pencils instead of spending millions developing a zero-g pen
    That is a myth. In actuality a company went on their own to develop it and offered it to NASA (who later started buying them).

    See here: Space Pen.
  15. Don't underestimate the need by J05H · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't underestimate the need for privacy while dropping the "bomb", so to speak. For ISS, this is the ramp-up to 6 crew members. It takes longer on the Shuttle toilets than regular Earth toilets (30+ min.), it's safe to assume the strap-in and strap-out time makes Mir-type toilets take longer, too. The pictured unit in the article has an actual crapper to sit on instead of the Shuttle's butt-sucker to strap into (think vacuum-diaper). It just seems more dignified. IIRC, the Mir-type toilets also serve a shower/cleaning function. With 2-3 crew it is simple to negotiate toilet time. With 6 people, they will need the second toilet.

    Weirdest. Topic. Ever.

    Josh

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
  16. Re:you give me half that much money... by ThosLives · · Score: 2, 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-of-the-envelope method to do a sanity check on big-ticket items. The difficulty comes in because sometimes the "years" in "man-years" isn't just the years worked, but also the years of "pay without work" to cover things like low-demand services. For instance, if I want to make a living building space toilets, but the market is only for one space toilet every 5 years, then one space toilet has to cover 5 years' worth of my living. And if I'm the expert or whatever in space toilet development, people won't mind paying my living for 5 years with only one sale, because that will help ensure that I'll be able to make that additional space toilet 5 years later instead of being unavailable because I have to work at Big Box Retailer Number Seven because I didn't have enough income to stay in the space toilet market.

    Remember, space toilets aren't something they make using mass production in the lowest-priced labor market.

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  17. Re:you give me half that much money... by Technician · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would like to see the break down of what costs so fscking much.

    Field test data. Have you priced a 2 week field test run lately?

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  18. What about the up or down lid controversy? by lena_10326 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That still hold in outer space? Given that up and down is difficult to determine...

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
  19. Uh oh by krazo · · Score: 2, Funny

    From TFA:

    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

  20. Boldly going by hcdejong · · Score: 4, Funny

    Captain's log, September 29th, 2007...

  21. Whirring fan blades below by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 2, Funny

    my gear make me a little nervous.

  22. Re:A bargain? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, but when it comes to the interview and you're asked what that "critical tool" was, it will surely cause a snicker or two. Sure, it's critical but ... well, it's not really as flashy as designing some robot arm, you'll agree. Even though it's probably more important than that arm could be.

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.