Slashdot Mirror


Space Station Toilets Poop Out

otter42 writes "The International Space Station's toilet has gone kaput. It seems that the system for separating solid and liquid waste has developed a fault. 'Solids' go where they're supposed to, but 'liquids' don't. The astronauts have bypassed the '"the troublesome hardware" for urine collection with a "special receptacle."' Something tells me they're glad the failure wasn't the other way around." Update: 05/28 21:54 GMT by T : According to a post on Engadget, the toilet's now been repaired.

207 comments

  1. In Soviet Russua . . . . by Eg0Death · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . Space Station poops on you!

    --
    Why is this thus? What is the reason for this thusness?
    1. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Good joke, but it's spelled Russia!" - AC

      "Oh, crap!" - Eg0Death

    2. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Eg0Death · · Score: 4, Informative

      . . . SpellCzech says it is spelled Russua!

      --
      Why is this thus? What is the reason for this thusness?
    3. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In Nazi Germany, however, toilet malfunctions sink U-boats : http://www.uboat.net/boats/u1206.htm

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man. The Poor International Space Station.

      OK, that was crap.

    5. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 3, Informative

      . . . SpellCzech says it is spelled Russua!

      Real Czechs spell it Rusko.

      --
      There you are, staring at me again.
    6. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by AioKits · · Score: 5, Funny

      My favorite line from that article was this: (enabling the boat to use its toilet at greater depth than before).

      It sounds almost heroic to use THAT toilet! Men, I'm going to drop a load at a depth in the ocean, GREATER THAN ANY MAN HAS BEFORE!

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    7. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by crawling_chaos · · Score: 4, Funny

      . . . SpellCzech says it is spelled Russua! Real Czechs spell it Rusko. Usually with an expletive or three thrown in.
      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    8. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny
      I don't know if they still do, but toilets on British submarines used to be accompanied by a long checklist for flushing them with the accompanying warning:

      Please follow these instructions carefully, or you will get your own back.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      why did you have to dump that one on us?

    10. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by AnomaliesAndrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "special receptacle"

      So basically they're peeing in Gatorade and Icy Tea bottles, and chucking them out the window trucker-style...!

      --
      Move all sig!
    11. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I imagine the British, like the US and everyone else I am aware of, have replaced the older system (were the toilet flushed directly to sea) with the a newer system (where the toilet is flushed to tank that is later pumper to sea). The newer system is orders of magnitude safer.

    12. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by PawNtheSandman · · Score: 1

      "He called the shit "poop", AHAHAHAHA." Bonus pts to those who get it.

    13. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to roll down the window and look for a gas station.

    14. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British bidets run with fractional pressure and tiny flow rates.
      So the Germans naturally upped the ante.

    15. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Nazi Germany, however, toilet malfunctions sink U-boats : http://www.uboat.net/boats/u1206.htm

      To quote Neal Stephenson: "ABANDON SHIT! ABANDON SHIT!"

    16. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by gnick · · Score: 1

      where the toilet is flushed to tank that is later pumper to sea Actually, in the systems I know of, the waste is stored in large containers and eventually sunk to the bottom of the ocean. I believe the U.S. Navy has environmental programs in place to offset their dumping.

      Simply pumping the waste out to sea made it possible to track subs based on the resulting floaters.
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    17. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now that's a war story... "Grandpa, what did you do in the great war?" "I was tracking down shit, sonny."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Can't be. 2 out of 5 letters being vowels doesn't sound very Czech.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... loose cheeks sink ships?

    20. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, in the systems I know of, the waste is stored in large containers and eventually sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

      Trash is handled this way - not bodily waste.
       
       

      Simply pumping the waste out to sea made it possible to track subs based on the resulting floaters.

      There isn't going to be any floaters - pumps make very efficient grinders.
    21. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Skeet112 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think they all live in a yellow submarine?

    22. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by iamacat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No go. Urine spray will mix with air inside the bottle as little bubbles and escape together with excess air as the bottles feels up. You are better off peeing in a balloon or at least crunching the bottle before use. The later scenario can lead to other body fluids being deposited for male crew members and female ones may need medical help to get the bottle out due to suction.

    23. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aww, that's nasty.

    24. Re:In Soviet Russua . . . . by aqk · · Score: 1

      No spell-checker is used here.
      I use a spell-slow-vacker instead!


  2. No prizes for guessing .... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny
    ... what hit the fan. From the article:

    A NASA status report noted that last week, while using the toilet system in the Russian-built service module, âoethe crew heard a loud noise and the fan stopped working.â The solid waste collector is functioning properly, but the system for collecting liquid waste was not.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:No prizes for guessing .... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Speaking of space toilet malfunctions, I remember hearing about one mission in which the fan was mounted backwards, with predictable consequences. I'm pretty sure I heard this from an astronaut, when I was at space camp oh 15 years ago, but I don't know for sure if it's a real story. Does anyone know if this is true?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:No prizes for guessing .... by AgentPaper · · Score: 1

      Also heard that one at Space Camp, circa 1993-94. They never specified which STS flight it was, which makes me think it's astronaut legend. (Besides, IIRC, the orbiter WCS isn't user-serviceable except for minor maintenance while on-orbit, so a total failure like an improperly installed slinger fan would probably result in a mission abort.)

      Amusingly enough, one of the failure modes the mission directors threw at my Academy II team during our "long mission" was a rupture of the sanitation system holding tank on the space station. It was quite enough of a mess with the counselors throwing TP and wadded-up pantyhose everywhere to simulate the, *ahem,* products of the rupture. I wouldn't even want to think about what a disaster zone the ISS guys would have had to contend with in microgravity.

      --
      First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
  3. Their mission... by Bazman · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to boldly go where no man has gone before.

    Any jokes about the Captain's Log will be flushed out by the moderation system...

    1. Re:Their mission... by NETHED · · Score: 1

      Hats off to you. Great Comment

      --
      --sig fault--
    2. Re:Their mission... by Tetsujin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now they have to go to Uranus and wipe out the Klingons!

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    3. Re:Their mission... by PJ+The+Womble · · Score: 1

      In Space, No One Can Hear U-Rine!

  4. I've always said it... by mangu · · Score: 1

    This space station is a piece of shit. And that pisses me off.

  5. time to innovate by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can't they just piss out the window ?

    $.02 says the 'special receptacle' is a Nalgene bottle

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:time to innovate by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and it should fall just over your head!

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    2. Re:time to innovate by Ihlosi · · Score: 5, Funny
      Can't they just piss out the window ?



      Regardless of what happens to a part of the human body that is exposed to a hard vaccum (explodes spectacularly as seen in Hollywood movies vs. just becoming freeze-dried really quickly), and attempts at this are a sure way to earn a Darwin award.

    3. Re:time to innovate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can't they just piss out the window ? Frosty Piss!
    4. Re:time to innovate by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      You win the thread.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    5. Re:time to innovate by mike2R · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I vote for the Captain's Log joke earlier...

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    6. Re:time to innovate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Probably similar to what happens when you use one of the "bodily enhancement" devices that they advertise via e-mail.

      Not much difference as far as pressure effect between partial and full vacuum.

      except perhaps the freeze-dry effect. (But then freeze dry does take a bit of time...) You might want to point it somewhere warm (but not too warm :-))

    7. Re:time to innovate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, no. You neither freeze quickly nor explode.

      A human passes out in around 13 seconds when the air is drawn out of the lungs by the vacuum - and then dies in about five to ten minutes - due to - tada - lack of oxygen.

      And hard vacuum is a very, very poor conductor, therefore there won't be any freezing anytime soon either. Sure, you grow cold, but that'll be over hours, not over seconds.

      All of this is well documented by NASA, too.

    8. Re:time to innovate by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Can't they just piss out the window ?

      Regardless of what happens to a part of the human body that is exposed to a hard vaccum (explodes spectacularly as seen in Hollywood movies vs. just becoming freeze-dried really quickly), and attempts at this are a sure way to earn a Darwin award.

      Piss on a sponge (or a towel or something similar), squeeze the sponge dry outside of the station, return it inside for reuse. You don't even get a cloud of ice crystals following the station, since Sun's radiation will vaporize water and then break apart water molecules.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:time to innovate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And hope there isn't any air trapped in the sponge when you do it or you have a piss bomb.

    10. Re:time to innovate by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Informative

      The experiment of exposing an unpressurized hand to near vacuum for a significant time while the pilot went about his business occurred in real life on Aug. 16, 1960. Joe Kittinger, during his ascent to 102,800 ft (19.5 miles) in an open gondola, lost pressurization of his right hand. He decided to continue the mission, and the hand became painful and useless as you would expect. However, once back to lower altitudes following his record-breaking parachute jump, the hand returned to normal.
      Quoted from NASA
      There you have it, you don't explode in space. Your skin is actually very air tight. I think the worst thing that could happen is your bladder would become inverted. Think about it. Ouch!
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    11. Re:time to innovate by turbomarcin · · Score: 1

      Space does not have any temperature or pressure you can speak of, so actually the urine would evaporate.

    12. Re:time to innovate by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 1

      robster cross? what the fuck is robster cross?

    13. Re:time to innovate by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      And hard vacuum is a very, very poor conductor, therefore there won't be any freezing anytime soon either.

      Water evaporates at very, very low temperatures in a hard vacuum, and there's plenty of water in a human that can evaporate. Evaporation requires energy, so the temperature of the rest of the body will drop.

    14. Re:time to innovate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yes, but a strawman.

      You won't have much water evaporating quickly. The human skin isn't THAT sensitive to pressure.

      The body temperature WILL drop, yes. This however takes a significant amount of time - you'd die faster from the lack of air than the physical effects of the vacuum itself.

    15. Re:time to innovate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pass out quickly not because of air being drawn out of the lungs, but because the pressure drop interferes with blood circulation to the brain (gas bubbles in the arteries) and the brain loses consciousness.
      If it was just the lungs, it would be the same amount of time as you can hold your breath without passing out (while the blood continues to circulate with the oxygen it has).

    16. Re:time to innovate by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I think the worst thing that could happen is your bladder would become inverted.
      Ummm...the bends http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_sickness, perhaps?
      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    17. Re:time to innovate by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Yep, I was about to say the same thing. You'd probably just get something similar to the bends.

      The same pressure differential exists between space and sea level (1 - 0 = 1 atm) as sea level and 33 feet under. (2 - 1 = 1 atm)

      Of course, you require air and an exposure suit to live in both situations.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    18. Re:time to innovate by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about full body exposure to space. I was thinking of the fact that in the glove example I noted above, the body doesn't have any openings in the hand (other than sweat glands). If a male were to relieve himself in a similar fashion in space there would be a pressure differential across internal organs, not just the skin. The muscles that control the bladder could probably hold back the pressure differential. However, to relive oneself, those muscles must relax. Your torso works on a principle of equal pressure, if your diaphragm isn't strong enough the air in your lungs could expand and force your bladder out the tiny hole, or if other muscles aren't strong enough, air could enter other orifices with similar consequences.

      I am not a doctor, nor a biologist, but I think the chances of these things happening are unlikely. However, I wouldn't want to try it.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    19. Re:time to innovate by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Ah....got it. And I hadn't thought of your example -- ouch is right!

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    20. Re:time to innovate by kmac06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the same situation as holding your breath. When holding your breath, the air in your lungs starts out with a lot of oxygen, which continues to be absorbed by the lungs. In a vacuum, their is no oxygen in your lungs, so your blood loses oxygen to the vacuum as it approaches equilibrium.

    21. Re:time to innovate by skabob · · Score: 1

      If you hold a lungful of air you can survive in the total vacuum for about thirty seconds. But what with space being the mind boggling size that it is the chances of getting picked up by another ship within those thirty seconds are two to the power of two hundred and sixty-seven thousand seven hundred and nine to one against. /Douglas Adams for President

    22. Re:time to innovate by duckInferno · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Only water that is directly exposed to the hard vacuum of space evaporates - that is, any moisture on your skin or your tongue/mouth. it's also not the temperature that makes it evaporate - it's the low pressure. A cell's wall is enough to stop its waater content from reaching the low pressure required to cause it to evaporate.

      The evaporation itself causes instantaneous heat loss, but on a very small scale (you'd experience more heat loss from momentarily brushing your arm up against a good conductor at room temperature, such as a metal railing). As the previous poster says it would take HOURS to freeze.

      Interestingly enough, it's not the cold that will get you (that takes hours)... nor the vacuum's low pressure (that takes a few minutes). If you're ejected into space and you're not in the shade, you'll be blasted with a lethal dose of the sun's radiation within seconds. You will actually heat up.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    23. Re:time to innovate by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      Holding your breath in hard vaccuum is not advised; there's a good chance your lungs will internally rupture. Best to just close your eyes and hope someone fishes you back in within two minutes.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    24. Re:time to innovate by BluBrick · · Score: 1

      the chances of getting picked up by another ship within those thirty seconds are two to the power of two hundred and sixty-seven thousand seven hundred and nine to one against. ...and falling!
      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    25. Re:time to innovate by cababunga · · Score: 1

      A human passes out in around 13 seconds when the air is drawn out of the lungs by the vacuum So you can jump out, very-very quickly pee and jump back...
  6. Something I have in common with NASA engineers... by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... I don't understand plumbing, either.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  7. well by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well that sounds pretty shitty.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:well by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, I expected a bunch of crappy posts about how pissed the station crew was.

    2. Re:well by edittard · · Score: 1

      Lucky it's in Earth orbit, rather than a probe aiming at Uranus.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    3. Re:well by Skeet112 · · Score: 1

      Better than expecting a bunch of pissy posts about how crappy the space station crew was.

  8. The good news by Megane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The good news is that we're about to send another shuttle up, maybe they can throw some parts in.

    But they only have one toilet up there? I mean, sure it's not a "Criticality One" component, but you'd think that would be a good candidate for redundancy.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    1. Re:The good news by Megane · · Score: 2, Informative

      It appears that there is some kind of toilet on the Soyuz module, though I would guess that it probably doesn't have as much capacity or functionality.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:The good news by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I just overheard news announcement on NPR that that shuttle is loaded up to the brim with 32000 lb of Japanese equipment, so they had to get rid off some observational periscope for outer insulation or smth....

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    3. Re:The good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unfortunately this Shuttle mission is probably the most weight limited mission of the entire program. They are putting up the big part of the Japanese lab, and it is huge! I'd have to check, but I think this is the most massive object a Space Shuttle will ever put up. Unless the toilet weighs less than 100 kg, there probably isn't room for it. They've already cut one member of the crew to save weight.

    4. Re:The good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you mean ? Do Russians take smaller dumps and don't read the newspaper while at it ? =)

    5. Re:The good news by ultranova · · Score: 4, Informative

      But they only have one toilet up there? I mean, sure it's not a "Criticality One" component, but you'd think that would be a good candidate for redundancy.

      Actually, in a small airtight container where the air cannot be exchanged easily (if at all), waste management is Criticality One, especially since there's no gravity and the waste is gas forming and full of micro-organisms.

      Breathing powdered shit is dangerous.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:The good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to this old article the US had ordered a Russian version toilet system to replace the American version and was due to be delivered this year. A specific date however wasn't given.

    7. Re:The good news by fprintf · · Score: 1

      I heard on NPR this morning that they even had to omit the periscope for checking the heat resistance tiles, because there is no room. Apparently the last space shuttle mission left theirs at the space station for the crew to use.

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    8. Re:The good news by PJ+The+Womble · · Score: 1

      Breathing powdered shit is dangerous.

      Yes, that's why cocaine hydrochloride is a Class A controlled drug.
    9. Re:The good news by PJ+The+Womble · · Score: 1

      The good news is that we're about to send another shuttle up, maybe they can throw some parts in.

      Let's hope the new shuttle is soon on-stream.
    10. Re:The good news by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      However, it does smell better.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    11. Re:The good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe they now have to cut all the members. And provide tubes. ... Oh you mean..! ;)

    12. Re:The good news by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I think it was a communication error. When the designers asked if they should consider a backup system for the toilet, the crew groaned "hell no!"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:The good news by PJ+The+Womble · · Score: 1

      However, it does smell better. Not the stuff you get in the less salubrious parts of South London, mate!
    14. Re:The good news by swillden · · Score: 3, Funny

      They've already cut one member of the crew to save weight.

      How much did they cut off? And what part?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:The good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They've already cut one member of the crew to save weight."

      Wow, Which part they cut? maybe he/she will not need to use the toilet after that, so it is a double gain....

    16. Re:The good news by groslyunderpaid · · Score: 1

      Well, as far as criticality goes, it may not be number 1, but it's certainly number 2!!

  9. Re:Something I have in common with NASA engineers. by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

    What's to understand?
    1:)Crap rolls down hill.
    2:)The boss is a jerk.
    3:)Payday is Friday.

    --
    Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
  10. Could be worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My father could be running NASA. I'm sure they wouldn't happy to hear they'd have to hold it until they got home.

  11. Two systems? by RockMFR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is the shit separated from the piss? Is it because the piss will just fly all over the place due to the lack of gravity? If that's the case, I hope nobody has diarrhea :)

    1. Re:Two systems? by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      Given the regulation of the astronauts' diets, I'd think diarrhea would be extraordinarily unlikely for any reason short of illness, which they're screened pretty heavily for. Diarrhea in space would be the worst...

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    2. Re:Two systems? by rtaylor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The water is recycled.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    3. Re:Two systems? by cosmocain · · Score: 1

      erm, whoever modded that "Interesting" didn't fully understand the laws of gravity - or, in this case, the abscence of gravity. i mean...just because it's a little bit more solid (sh)it doesn't have by far, in normal everyday crap-cases, the mass to "develop" gravity. really!

    4. Re:Two systems? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      More specifically, the urine is used as a coolant for various equipment in the station.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    5. Re:Two systems? by PJ+The+Womble · · Score: 2, Funny

      The water is recycled. You're taking the piss, right?
    6. Re:Two systems? by somersault · · Score: 1

      Everything 'develops' gravity. I think he meant more that the piss isn't held together in the same way as shit, and therefore would have more chance of going everywhere. I don't see why it would, unless perhaps it bounced off something, or you were having serious control issues.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Two systems? by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. Its currently collected and then tossed out with the rest of the garbage. Startig in the Fall when the WCS comes on line it will actually be used. While it's certainly potable after processing the likely hood of that is pretty small for the ISS. For whatever reason the astros are against drinking their own piss even after processing, and they still hold political clout when it comes to policy.



      The WCS will enable it to be collected and then fed into the OGA to produce O2, and H. the H being dumped overboard. This is actually a critical process for any chance of going to Mars. It's estimated that up to 90% of the O2 needed for the trip can be created from reclaimed water from various places, mainly waste. So what you eat and drink and piss today you'll be breathing tomorrow.

  12. Special Recepticle = by abolitiontheory · · Score: 0

    Dixy cup.

  13. so what are they going to do? by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they going to relieve themselves in little plastic baggies? And will there be the temptation to take these baggies out on spacewalks, wait until the appropriate continent swings around and let 'em fly? Man, the pigeons will be looking up to these astronauts as gods.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:so what are they going to do? by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Puts a whole new perspective on the ol' "long drop toilet".

  14. Trouble with space travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always knew this would be the number one problem with space travel...

    Get it, number one problem!

    Thank you, and don't forget to tip you waitress

    1. Re:Trouble with space travel by somersault · · Score: 1

      Double entendre machines are illegal round here. You must now give it to CmdrTaco!

      --
      which is totally what she said
  15. Discovery Mission by ryanleary · · Score: 0

    With Discovery going up in about a week, engineers are looking to fly up some parts. This, however, may be problematic considering the Japanese module that is being lifted by the orbiter is already so massive (~30000 pounds) that some sensors inside the orbiter with relation to the boom arm had to be removed for it to fit. If there is a significant amount of parts, it simply may not be possible to place inside the orbiter during countdown given the size of its current payload and the number of balance/fuel/weight calculations that would have to be done.

    1. Re:Discovery Mission by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I supposed duct taping the parts to the inside of the module is out of the question?

    2. Re:Discovery Mission by ryanleary · · Score: 0

      I would assume that would be fine, however, there is still the question of mass and how that relates to mass. It is not so much a question of volume.

  16. Let me guess... by Chelloveck · · Score: 2, Funny

    a "special receptacle"

    Let me guess... A two-liter Mountain Dew bottle which they'll later just throw out the window, right? Because I've soooo been there, man!

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    1. Re:Let me guess... by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      I trained as a Private Inquiries Agent (in a country/state that requires licensing to do that as a job). The "Mountain Dew Bottle" was covered pretty much in the first day of the six month course. It's required learning, and if you forget "empty bottle" when they ask you about required items for a surveillance operation, you won't be passing that test!

      (although procedure is to keep it, then dispose of it correctly later - not throw it out the window)

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
  17. Other way around? by Sabz5150 · · Score: 1

    Something tells me they're glad the failure wasn't the other way around. No shit, eh?
    --
    "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
  18. not the fix for *everything* by v1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quite possibly NASA's first ever major problem that not even the magical duct tape could save the day.

    Now watch, we'll read tomorrow about them making a new makeshift toilet with duct tape...

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:not the fix for *everything* by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

      that is completely unfair...Duct tape could easily solve this problem...for male or female astronauts. Just would have been pretty painful.

    2. Re:not the fix for *everything* by spamking · · Score: 1

      and bailing wire . . . don't forget about the bailing wire.

    3. Re:not the fix for *everything* by hansraj · · Score: 1

      And also astronauts would have to hear how full of shit they are!

    4. Re:not the fix for *everything* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The duct tape wouldn't be applied to the _toilet_.

  19. "Russian Built" by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Decades after the space race ended and the U.S. media and NASA still feel the need to get in any shot they can at the Russians and downplay their incredible successes. When a Mars probe fails, no one says "The American built Mars rover was lost today." No one says "The American built Columbia space shuttle blew up today." For decades growing up, all any of us heard about was the great Apollo program. No one heard about the Russian space stations, the Russian probe to Mars, etc. In fact, the first time American media reported at any length on the MIR was when it started to have problems (well after it was beyond its projected lifespan).

    The U.S. media treats the Russian space program like it were some bunch of morons building substandard machinery. But who did WE rely on to take us into space when our great space shuttle was reduced to bits and pieces? Who has a MUCH lower fatality rate and a MUCH higher rocket success rate?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:"Russian Built" by everphilski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one says "The American built Columbia space shuttle blew up today." For decades growing up, all any of us heard about was the great Apollo program. No one heard about the Russian space stations, the Russian probe to Mars, etc. In fact, the first time American media reported at any length on the MIR was when it started to have problems (well after it was beyond its projected lifespan).

      All of those programs were run by a single country. ISS is the international space station. You don't know who contributed what part unless you identify it. People regularly identify Japanese, Russian and other contributions to ISS because it is appropriate, both good and bad.

      Now, the Russians have had a string of bad luck the past few months - the computers on ISS (although that might have been induced by new solar panels, who knows who is truly to blame), the explosive bolts on the Soyuz causing non-nominal landings (and now word that the Soyuz docked to ISS, the emergency lifeboat, has the same hardware) and now this. I'm sure they aren't happy about it but it happens. America has had their strings of bad luck as well. How many Redstone rockets exploded on the pad (or within inches of it on ascent) before we ever got a monkey into suborbital space, much less a human?

      Shit happens, but I think you are being overly sensitive.

    2. Re:"Russian Built" by maxume · · Score: 1

      "Wah". Slashdot made a point of NASA boiling some solder:

      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/23/1723208&from=rss

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:"Russian Built" by HisMother · · Score: 2, Informative

      The smart money says the early Soviet space program involved sending large numbers of cosmonauts to near-certain death, then only reporting the successes. You really think a totalitarian regime doesn't sweep its failures under the rug?

      --
      Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
    4. Re:"Russian Built" by Thelasko · · Score: 3, Funny

      Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    5. Re:"Russian Built" by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because the ballistic missile early warning system never would have caught those failures and we would have cooperated with the Soviets in covering them up to protect their tender feelings.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    6. Re:"Russian Built" by BodhiCat · · Score: 1

      How many Redstone rockets exploded on the pad (or within inches of it on ascent) before we ever got a monkey into suborbital space, much less a human?

      Actually the Redstone rocket was a very reliable launch vehicle, you are probably referring to the Vanguard rocket which had several well publicized failures before the Jupiter-C, a derivative of the Redstone, was used to launch the first U.S. satellite in 1958.

      Redstone Rocket on Wikipedia

    7. Re:"Russian Built" by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because BMEWS could always tell the guys at NORAD if the "missile" was manned or unmanned, right?

      --
      Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    8. Re:"Russian Built" by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Congratulations genius, you referenced a movie so obscure nobody on Slashdot has seen it. It may have been terrible, and filled with scientific inaccuracies, but at it was better than that other film. Maybe people would have gotten your joke if it wasn't made after MST3k went off the air.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    9. Re:"Russian Built" by DerekLyons · · Score: 0

      For decades growing up, all any of us heard about was the great Apollo program. No one heard about the Russian space stations, the Russian probe to Mars, etc. In fact, the first time American media reported at any length on the MIR was when it started to have problems (well after it was beyond its projected lifespan).

      Well, there's your problem - you depended on the mass media to spoon feed you information rather than going out and getting it yourself. Also keep in mind that the same media, when it did report on the Russians (specifically Soyuz), only reported the successes.
       
       

      Who has a MUCH lower fatality rate and a MUCH higher rocket success rate?

      Nobody. As a percentage of passengers, Shuttle is actually lower than Soyuz. As a percentage of flights, the difference is statistically insensible. Something like .3% separates the Shuttle LOCV (Loss of Crew and Vehicle) rate from the Soyuz LOCV rate.
       
      But really, that adds up to 'lying with statistics' as it dismisses the two LOV (Loss of Vehicle) accidents and multiple LOM (Loss of Mission) incidents suffered by Soyuz. (The Shuttle, to date, has one partial LOM incident and no LOV accidents.) It also dismisses the numerous significant incidents and accidents suffered by Soyuz that didn't lead to LOM or LOV. For example: Soyuz has, four times in it's history, failed to properly jettision it's Service Module - including both of the last two flights!. (Which means they start reentry nose first - leading to significant damage to the Reentry Module. This hasn't killed anyone - yet.)
       
      Now, I know someone will bring up the old saw "but the Soyuz hasn't killed anyone in decades". So what? No matter where you arbitrarily set the line between what flights you will and won't count - you run into the same problem, an ongoing series of significant accidents and incidents. If you claim "but those were different spacecraft due to all the modifications"[1], then you limit yourself to the current Soyuz TMA series... Which in 12 completed flights to date has suffered two computer failures during reentry and two failures to separate the Service Module - very serious incidents all.
       
      [1] The same is true of the Shuttle incidentally - it has been modified and upgraded extensively across its lifetime.
    10. Re:"Russian Built" by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      Totalitarian or not - the space program was well documented nonetheless - you can't have such complex program without proper logs. The confidentiality of most documents expired years ago, besides no state on earth can keep such secrets forever - too many people involved, too much memoires published ever since.
      And of course, every launch was near-certain death at that time. The Cosmonauts knew this as well. You're doing basically the same NASA did as they described Yuri Gagarin as "first European in space" - trying to downplay the importance of USSR in space program and science itself - they were empire of evil, right? How could they ever do something significant?

    11. Re:"Russian Built" by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

      Shit happens, but I think you are being overly sensitive.

      One can be overly sensitive and correct at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.

    12. Re:"Russian Built" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, Russians DO write similar articles. This article is on spacedaily and several mainstream russian papers. In addition, they DO point out our failures. It is obvious that you do not read russian papers.

    13. Re:"Russian Built" by everphilski · · Score: 1

      Yes, Vanguard, good catch.

    14. Re:"Russian Built" by zx-15 · · Score: 1

      Oh please keep your high-flying attitudes about what totalitarian society to yourself. USSR indeed tried to cover up some of its failures, but to claim that someone intentionally send people to orbit to certain death is ridiculous. There was even a joke in the era about this; the story goes that during those early launches, along with some scientific equipment a voice recording with radio transmitter were sent in those probes, and American military who intercepted those broadcasts, claimed that the Russians send cosmonauts on suicide mission, so then next unmanned space mission - one of the Sputniks, I think, carried a Pyatnitsky choir recording. There, s also a nice novel called Omon Ra, written in early nineties, that satirizes USSR from that perspective, but may I remind you that this is a work of fiction.

    15. Re:"Russian Built" by mortonda · · Score: 2, Informative

      (The Shuttle, to date, has one partial LOM incident and no LOV accidents.) What ?!?!?!?!?

      Challenger and Columbia. I think that counts as two LOV accidents. Challenger was also a LOM, and Columbia was a partial LOM.
    16. Re:"Russian Built" by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      There's plently else that the typical American doesn't know about the Soviet space program :

      - they landed on Venus
      - they had robotic rovers (lunakhods) driving around the moon in the early 70's
      - they built a functioning shuttle that, unmanned, orbited the earth and landed flawlessly before being mothballed due to lack of funds

      Before feeling too smug about our own better funding, let's note that we're about to enter a multi-year stretch after the shuttle retires where we have no way to put a man in space until a shuttle replacement eventually gets built. In the meantime we'll be begging the Russians (& maybe Europeans) for rides to the ISS.

    17. Re:"Russian Built" by zlogic · · Score: 1

      Then why did they report some failures but not others?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_and_Russian_manned_space_missions

    18. Re:"Russian Built" by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Actually the CIA kept a very tight eye on the Russian launch facilities: in fact it was increased activity at one that led them to conclude there was a possibility that the next Soyuz launch would be a slingshot around the moon, which led to the scrapping of the original Apollo 9 mission and its transformation into Apollo 8 and the voyage around the moon.

      So yes, they were paying attention.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    19. Re:"Russian Built" by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Challenger and Columbia. I think that counts as two LOV accidents. Challenger was also a LOM, and Columbia was a partial LOM.

      Nope - it's a hierarchy not a Venn diagram. Not to mention that even if you do treat it as Venn diagram, Soyuz still comes off worse.
    20. Re:"Russian Built" by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      As a percentage of passengers, Shuttle is actually lower than Soyuz. Don't complain about false statistics then use your own. The Shuttle has flown 830 people and lost 14. Soyuz has launched 242 people and lost 4. The shuttle fatality rate is by a very tiny fraction higher than the Soyuz one. The Soyuz LOCV is either 1% or 2% (the vehicle did land fine that one time, granted the crew didn't) while the shuttle is 1.67%.

      For example: Soyuz has, four times in it's history, failed to properly jettision it's Service Module - including both of the last two flights!. (Which means they start reentry nose first - leading to significant damage to the Reentry Module. This hasn't killed anyone - yet.) It's probably been put into the design and over engineered for a lot by this point so it's unlikely to ever kill anyone, they apparently only badly injure the unlucky crew now instead permanently damaging their innards.

      It's actually frightening that despite how much effort and money goes into the Shuttles (and their safety) they're not at all safer than the Soyuz flown by the Russians.

      Now, I know someone will bring up the old saw "but the Soyuz hasn't killed anyone in decades". So what? No matter where you arbitrarily set the line between what flights you will and won't count - you run into the same problem, an ongoing series of significant accidents and incidents. Limiting it to the same time frame for both isn't exactly arbitrary and we can include the Apollo missions for NASA if we want to for the other route.
    21. Re:"Russian Built" by RobertB-DC · · Score: 1
      What has me curious is this snippet from Universe Today:

      The replacement parts are being flown in from Russia today, hand-carried in a diplomatic pouch, and will be added to the payload on board space shuttle Discovery.

      A diplomatic pouch isn't just a fancy alternative to Fed Ex, you know. It (and its carrier) are completely immune from examination or questioning by the host country. Wikipedia notes one possible use that might be especially interesting to Slashdot crypto geeks:

      In discussions of cryptography, the diplomatic bag is conventionally used as an example of the ultimate secure channel used to exchange keys, codebooks and other necessarily secret materials. Like Alice and Bob, it is an example of a metasyntactic variable when used this way.

      In actual practice, diplomatic bags are indeed used for exactly this purpose.

      Seems like overkill for replacing a busted space-flapper. It sounds more like the plot for a space-based spy novel -- a Russian agent on board the station "accidentally" disables the one device that would warrant a no-questions-asked addition to the next shuttle. Is it really a coincidence that the toilet went out just a week before the next shuttle? I think nyet!
      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    22. Re:"Russian Built" by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Don't complain about false statistics then use your own. The Shuttle has flown 830 people and lost 14. Soyuz has launched 242 people and lost 4. The shuttle fatality rate is by a very tiny fraction higher than the Soyuz one. The Soyuz LOCV is either 1% or 2% (the vehicle did land fine that one time, granted the crew didn't) while the shuttle is 1.67%.

      It doesn't much matter which one is fractionally higher or lower - my basic point remains true, the difference in safety between the two vehicles is so small as to be meaningless.
       
       

      For example: Soyuz has, four times in it's history, failed to properly jettision it's Service Module - including both of the last two flights!. (Which means they start reentry nose first - leading to significant damage to the Reentry Module. This hasn't killed anyone - yet.)

      It's probably been put into the design and over engineered for a lot by this point so it's unlikely to ever kill anyone

      That's the emotional argument. Rational engineering analysis suggests otherwise.
       
       

      It's actually frightening that despite how much effort and money goes into the Shuttles (and their safety) they're not at all safer than the Soyuz flown by the Russians.

      I would have phrased it somewhat differently, but on this point we are in violent agreement. It also has some potentially disheartening implications for the 'cheaper' commercial transports everyone keeps insisting that NASA should replace the Shuttle with.
       
       

      Limiting it to the same time frame for both isn't exactly arbitrary

      Yes it is, as it ground rules out a significant number of Soyuz flights without any rational justification for doing so. (Rational from an engineering point of view.)
       
       

      and we can include the Apollo missions for NASA if we want to for the other route.

      Why? There isn't any comparison between Shuttle and Apollo. Again, you indulge in emotional discourse rather than engineering discourse.
    23. Re:"Russian Built" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read more.

      When the Mars Climate Orbiter failed, people were all over NASA. When Mars Express succeeeded (although Beagle failed), there were those who wasted no time contrasting its success to MCO's failure. And I'm amazed that you were able to miss the mud-flinging after Columbia crashed because "those incompetent Americans wanted something fancy like the shuttle instead of simple like the Soyuz." You also missed the excitement in the 90's when the space shuttles started visiting the Mir, which was a great point of pride for the Russians, and well-covered by the American press.

      Not to mention, when you're writing for an American audience, you generally don't have to tell people that a NASA project was American-built. I'll admit the (American) press often gives the Russian Space Agency less credit than they deserve, but they have not been completely one-sided.

      And I would be remiss if I didn't correct you on the fatality and failure rates of the shuttle versus the Soyuz. Soyuz has launched 253 crewman in to space with 4 fatalities (1.6%). The Shuttle has launched 830 crewmen into space with 14 fatalities (1.7%). Statistically, these are indistinguishable. As far as launch success, the shuttle is at 99.2%. If you count one that ended up in a lower-than-intended orbit this drops to 98.4%, and 97.5% if you count Columbia STS-107, which launched successfully, but damaged the reentry system on its "payload". Soyuz has a launch success rate of somewhere around 97.5% (I'm having a hard time finding definite numbers). If you look at only manned Soyuz launches, since it is also used as an unmanned launcher, the success rate is 98% with two launch failures (interestingly, both were non-fatal due to successful operation of the escape systems), or 96% if you count the fatal missions, which were due to the spacecraft rather than the launch vehicle. Again, essentially negligible differences.

    24. Re:"Russian Built" by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      What ?!?!?!?!?

      Read the whole posting.

      Challenger and Columbia. I think that counts as two LOV accidents. Challenger was also a LOM, and Columbia was a partial LOM.

      Those were LOCV accidents. That means they're not counted as LOV, because none of the crew survived. If they had managed to crash the shuttle during landing with the crew still getting out alive, that would have been a LOV accident.

  20. yikes... by apodyopsis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Solids" go where they're supposed to, but "liquids" don't.

    I can't help it. My first reaction (and I am sure other peoples too) was what if an astronaut gets diarrhhea or gastroenteritis? suddenly opening the window would really look like a viable escape strategy. "Apollo bags" seems like an acceptable (albeit ghastly) short term solution.

    We may be rational, sensible people but scatological subjects will always affect us badly.

    1. Re:yikes... by maxume · · Score: 1

      On the shuttle, the waste management system desiccates the poo for storage. It isn't 100% effective in managing the dried poo. Little bits of it eventually start floating around the cabin.

      Body management is not a solved problem in space.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:yikes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We may be rational, sensible people Follow the infiltration guidelines would ya? You'll never fit it in with the Earthlings if you keep spouting that kind of rubbish about them!
    3. Re:yikes... by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      My first reaction (and I am sure other peoples too) was what if an astronaut gets diarrhhea or gastroenteritis? There have been several articles lately about food in space. One reason this makes headlines is because the diets of the astronauts is carefully controlled to avoid those conditions. Most people never think about it, but having a little gas could cause serious problems when you are doing things that involve rapidly changing air pressure.
      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  21. Well it could be worse... by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 1

    I mean I've peed in a bottle while driving 75MPH down the interstate, so it's probably possible to pee in a jar or the like while going 18000MPH around the Earth.

    1. Re:Well it could be worse... by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

      Well, except for the fact that when you peed in the bottle, the force of gravity helped make sure you didn't shoot away from it. Weightlessness complicates things a bit.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    2. Re:Well it could be worse... by xpuppykickerx · · Score: 2, Funny

      but you have to keep you foot on the gas(or use cruise control), a knee on the wheel and prop yourself up, so you don't pee on the seat. take that gravity!

  22. Cousin Eddie In Space: "The shitter's full!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better watch out for that sewer gas the next time the Shuttle arrives...

  23. What I'd say to the astronauts... by Robotech_Master · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Urine trouble now!"

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  24. In other words.... by ilovecheese · · Score: 0

    Shit happens. ;)

  25. Re:Special Recepticle? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, I understand there's two astronauts and one cup.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  26. Re:Something I have in common with NASA engineers. by lilomar · · Score: 1

    What's to understand? 1:)Crap rolls down hill. I think that was the problem, the plumber for the space station thought that too...
    --
    The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  27. "Special Receptacle"...? by FlyByPC · · Score: 1

    Amazing how many euphemisms there are for "Shop Vac" these days!

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
  28. Almost by pjt33 · · Score: 5, Funny
    That is a great line, but I feel it pales in comparison to

    [T]he commander, Schlitt, decided to use the toilet without the help of a trained specialist
    1. Re:Almost by Guerilla*+Napalm · · Score: 5, Funny

      Schlitt happens.

    2. Re:Almost by Bloodoflethe · · Score: 1

      There's a better comment than that one to accompany this quote.

      --
      "Little is much when little you need."
    3. Re:Almost by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 4, Funny

      No doubt. Even the commander can't take a Schlitt without supervision.

  29. Technical Term by beadfulthings · · Score: 1

    According to what I remember reading somewhere, the correct name for this highly-advanced portajohn is the 0 gee whizz...

    --
    "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
  30. Re:Something I have in common with NASA engineers. by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1

    This is in the Russian part of the station. My guess is they need to pour some vodka on it.

    --
    You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
    -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
  31. hmmm by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    And people, this is a good example of why giving Ritalin to all our third-graders might not be the greatest idea...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  32. Re:Special Recepticle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did you really -have- to say that?
    I'm barfing all over again thinking about it.

  33. The question is... by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Funny

    how much does a licensed plumber charge for a service call to low earth orbit?

    This could blow the budget for both the Moon and Mars!

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:The question is... by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      14 day shuttle flight. Four of those weekend days. That 72 hours at double rate. 144 hours.

      10 days left, 8 hours at normal rate, 16 at double rate. 320 + 80 + 144 = 544 hours.

      Normal hourly rate say $50 an hour. Double that for an emergency call. $100.

      $54400 or so for the work.

      Then he doesn't have the right part with him, so double the cost for the next shuttle flight.

      $108800. For a broken loo.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
  34. Maybe it's just me... by imyy4u3 · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...but do astronauts really need a machine to separate solid wastes from liquid ones? Can't they just piss in one place and shit in another? Seriously now...they can get to the moon, fly a rocket, and conduct experiments in no gravity, but they can't freakin' shit in one place and piss in another? And they don't always have to shit in a toilet full of water, either...that would certainly help separate solids from liquids. I never cease to be amazed by the stupidity of smart people.

    1. Re:Maybe it's just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ALWAYS have to piss before I take a shit. If I'd piss someplace else, and then go to the other toilet to take a dump, I wouldn't be able to. I guess these two systems are somehow connected in my body. :p

    2. Re:Maybe it's just me... by grahammm · · Score: 1

      Piers Anthony already thought of that one in book 1 of 'A Bio of a Space Tyrant'

  35. "What an incredible smell you've discovered!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a million of 'em.

    Okay, I've got two. But hey, you take what you can get...

  36. It's all ok... by hyperz69 · · Score: 1

    If it's yellow let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down.

    The astronauts can still do this. No emergency yet!

  37. Should'nt the title therefore be.. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Space Station Toilets Piss Off

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  38. Re:Something I have in common with NASA engineers. by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    4:) Don't bite your fingernails.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  39. Re:Special Recepticle? by angus_rg · · Score: 1

    There's no reason one can't use the cup and the other can't use the sink. I'm sure there's a cubby hole that could serve as a back alley.

  40. Re:Something I have in common with NASA engineers. by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

    I knew there was one I forgot. Good thing I don't do plumbing. I grew up doing electrical work, dad is/was a master electrician, retired.

    --
    Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
  41. New Rule On The ISS by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    New Rule: Stop putting paper towels in the toilet.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  42. The refreshing taste of... by BForrester · · Score: 1

    The astronauts have bypassed the '"the troublesome hardware" for urine collection with a "special receptacle".'

    The fluid in the glass jars lining the walls of the module? It's not the fresh new flavour from Snapple.

  43. backup your toilets by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

    Too bad. A buffer overflow in the main toilet. I can smell core-dumps.

    Since the toilet is such an important part of the system, why not build a redundant one? Redundant Array of Inexpensive Toilets?

    BTW. According to TFA there's still a toilet available in the Soyuz spaceship attached to the station. However that one was not as easy to use.

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:backup your toilets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad. A buffer overflow in the main toilet. I can smell core-dumps. Ten Internets for you, good sir.
  44. ObSnark by Xenophon+Fenderson, · · Score: 1

    Something tells me they're glad the failure wasn't the other way around.
    No shit!
    --
    I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
  45. Biological functions. by DrYak · · Score: 1

    sure it's not a "Criticality One" component No it is. Crapping and pissing are biological functions that are just as critical as eating, drinking, breathing and sleeping to keep someone alive.
    You want your crew alive ? You have to make sure some life support system works. That includes fresh air and temperature control. But that also includes, food supplies, sleeping bags and toilets.

    but you'd think that would be a good candidate for redundancy. Yup. What will be the next news ? The only microwave oven / food rehydration appliance of the whole station died ?
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  46. Relevant situation by dargaud · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In Antarctica we use a similar system, build by the European Space Agency, that recycles separately 'grey water' and 'black water' (I'll let you guess what those terms cover). At the time I was there in 2005 the station was new and the black water system wasn't operational, so we were using 'burners'... until something went wrong. There's more details on my pages but here's the main stuff:

    The smoke from the incinolets is becoming worse and worse, smoking up the entire building with a pungent stink. Michel takes some pressure measurements inside the evacuation tube and determines that there must be a block of ice formed inside. When they installed the tubes on the last days of the summer campaign, they did use special insulation around them, but at the junction between the tubes there's unprotected metal exposed to the outside. We don't have the crane anymore so we have to tie up to access the top junction from the roof or from a high ladder at the bottom. In the morning the work is atrociously difficult with a strong wind and a temperature of -60ÂC, ensconced in 10 cm of clothing and sausaged up in security slings. Every 10 minutes we break down and head back inside for some warmth. The price of taking a dump ! Fortunately in the afternoon the wind has dropped to a perfect zero and it's actually quite enjoyable to do technical rope work in such a setting. Throughout the day I provide technical rope assistance to Jeff while Stéphane and Jean work from the ladder down below. They finish the work the next day by installing an extractor at the base of the tube. During the 3 days without bathroom we have to use the outside construction toilet, which is fortunately heated but it's not particularly convenient at night ! There are also some pics somewhere.
    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Relevant situation by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      i was just up at camp with my friend and the camp has an incinolet, or as we called it, the inshiterator. i refused to use it and used the spider hut even at night

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  47. intercept message from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    intercept message from space:
    (repetitive machine noises getting louder as if something were about to break down :cluck cluck cluck cluck :sound stops:) -Holy Shiiit! Oh well, At least its cleaner than the ones at Walmart
    Hey Jimmy, did you manage to smuggle that vodka bottle of yours??
    -yep

    update intecept, 1 minute ago:
    -"Ok pressing this and it should be fixed now ..."
    - No Jimmy! that's the wrong flush button!!!... (KABOOM).
    No carrier.

  48. Just like Futurama by krel · · Score: 1

    Massive corn clog in port seven!

    --
    karma: ouch!
  49. Sh*tless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No Sh*t. There goes another million dollars. What do they have for a contingency plan? P*ssin in the wind, or lack therof?

  50. It's easy by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    It's just like working with electronics, in fact.

    * make sure both surfaces are clean (use a wire brush if needed)
    * heat both surfaces to just the right temp
    * allow the solder to wick up into the gap by capillary action

    note: might be a good idea to use lead-free solder...

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:It's easy by damn_registrars · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's just like working with electronics, in fact.

      * make sure both surfaces are clean (use a wire brush if needed)
      * heat both surfaces to just the right temp
      * allow the solder to wick up into the gap by capillary action

      note: might be a good idea to use lead-free solder...

      Gee, if I have to do all that just to take a dump on the space station, I think I'll pass...
      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    2. Re:It's easy by somersault · · Score: 1

      Wait, are we talking about plumbing, or sex? I also advocate not actually using lead in your pencil, to preserve your soldier's capillary action.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:It's easy by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Funny

      If sex for you involves a wire brush, a propane torch, and liquid tin, you've probably got some issues that need to be addressed.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:It's easy by somersault · · Score: 1

      I grew up in my basement, you insensitive clod!

      --
      which is totally what she said
  51. shit by ritalinvillain · · Score: 1

    if it were the other way around, would the shit be hitting the fan? or is the shit hitting the fan now?

  52. Re:Something I have in common with NASA engineers. by somersault · · Score: 1

    Plumbing and electrical work certainly wouldn't be the best combination ;)

    --
    which is totally what she said
  53. It's easy... by boris111 · · Score: 1

    Just replace the flange and wax ring. Sheesh!

  54. We stopped using the Moonshine still and ... by tyrione · · Score: 1

    are recyclin' the urine.

  55. hey rich kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't flush the condom

  56. A whole new meaning for by sa1lnr · · Score: 1

    A floater.

  57. Oh crap. by turly · · Score: 1

    Sorry, had to be said.

    --
    IX CCXLIX XVII II CLVII CXVI CCXXVII XCI CCXVI LXV LXXXVI CXCVII XCIX LXXXVI CXXXVI CXCII
  58. Prophecy courtesy of Bob Kanefsky & Ooklah the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.prometheus-music.com/audio/comfortsofhome.mp3

    The Comforts of Home
    --------------------
    I don't care if the ship's high tech.
    I don't care if it has a holodeck.
    I don't care if there's life support.
    Okay I guess I need the life support.
    But anything beyond that, I don't care,
    As long as there's a place somewhere a man can go.

    [SNIP]

    And even though your guts may ache
    I know that you will make it
    So you'll find a place to go
    Right into space.
    Who checks the air locks anyhow?
    A million years from now it may reach home.

    -- SandraL

  59. In Space - or Undersea - No one Can Hear You Gag by cmholm · · Score: 1

    Although it's gotten a little better over time, submarine warships are basically 300 foot long sewer pipes. After reading through the process of inboard venting the sanitary tank back in the day, I'm glad they didn't offer Smell O' Round VR for Das Boot.

    Someone needs to bring down an ISS air sample for someone in NAVSEA to evaluate for pungency.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  60. "special receptacle" ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the term "special receptacle" sounds a lot like "peeing in an empty beer bottle" to me. ;-)

  61. I love reality by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    This is the kind of problems humans will face everyday while exploring the universe. Not the plasma-shields, warp reactors and all that pasteurized crap you see in today's sci-fi movies and novels.

    And remember. In space, no one can hear you fart.

  62. Re:Something I have in common with NASA engineers. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If it was Russian, I'm sure you could fix it with a kick in the right place.

    Then again, if it was American, it sure would have a backup system. And let's be GLAD there's no backup, at least!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  63. For the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can you even crap in space? Doesn't it come right back at you? Or do you have to do a head stand?

  64. piss jugs by ksheff · · Score: 1

    Is the ISS now littered with piss jugs like when Ray was living in his old truck in the Sunnyvale trailer park?

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  65. "special receptacle." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That must be NASA'iren for a bottle....

  66. Life found on Mars by ELTaNiN · · Score: 1

    News Headline: Phoenix's greatest discovery

    The Mars Phoenix Lander just found water on mars. due to a NASA official, the water contains some particles which are guessed to be Organic Cells!!! The water was found in some kind of bag which he says was made of plastic, and it's the sign of a civilized life on Mars.

    There is also a video which shows NASA guys clap and hug each other at the time of this great success!!!

  67. Simple fix! by AnimeFreak · · Score: 1

    Just send out the Canadia to fix the problem!

  68. documented huh? by sponga · · Score: 1

    Dog, monkey or rat?

    1. Re:documented huh? by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      Dogs, Monkeys and Humans. In the latter case, intentional as well as accidental.

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
    2. Re:documented huh? by nbarriga · · Score: 1

      Any link with some info?

    3. Re:documented huh? by duckInferno · · Score: 1

      Google man :p

      --
      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it -- I'm huge!
  69. an old song by rust627 · · Score: 1


    The Intergalactic Laxative - Words & Music by: Donovan Leitch - 1973

    I was impressed like everyone,When man began to fly,
    Out of earthly regions,To planets in the sky.
    With total media coverage,We watched the heros land,
    As ceremoniously they disturbed the cosmic sand.

    In awe with admiration,We listened to the talk.
    Such pride felt they,Such joy to be upon the moon to walk.
    My romantic vision shattered,When it was explained to me,
    Spacemen wear old diapers in which they shit and pee.

    Oh, the intergalactic laxative,Will get you from here to there.
    Relieve you and believe me,Without a worry or care.
    If shitting is your problem,When you're out there in the stars,
    Oh, the intergalactic laxative will get you from here to Mars.

    They don't partake like you and I,Of beefy burger mush.
    Their food is specially prepared to dissolve into slush.
    Absorbed by multi-fibers in the super diaper suit,
    Otherwise the slush would trickle down inside the boot.

    Oh, the intergalactic laxative,Will get you from here to there.
    Relieve you and believe me,Without a worry or care.
    If shitting is your problem when you're out there in the stars,
    Oh, the intergalactic laxative will get you from here to Mars.

    You may well ask now what becomes of liquid they consume.
    A pipe is led from penis head to a unit in the room.
    The water is recirculated,Filtered for re-use.
    In case of anti-gravity - Pee gets on the loose.

    Oh, the intergalactic....... to Mars.

    Wherever man has conquered,On the quest for frontiers new,
    I'm glad that he's always had to do the number one and two.
    It makes it all so ordinary,Just like you and me,
    To know the greatest heroes,They had to shit and pee.

    Oh, the intergalactic....... to Mars.

    --
    da da da dum indeed.