Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Main Toilet On ISS Craps Out

Posted by kdawson on from the series-of-tubes dept.

The Narrative Fallacy writes "NASA has spent years getting ready for a crowd in space — adding additional sleeping quarters, learning how to recycle liquid waste into drinking water, and installing a second bathroom last year. But now the main toilet has broken down on the International Space Station while a record 13 astronauts are on board. For now Mission Control has advised the astronauts to hang an 'out of service' sign on the toilet as it may take days to repair. In the meantime, Endeavour's seven astronauts will be restricted to the shuttle bathroom. Last year a Russian cosmonaut complained that he was no longer allowed to use the US toilet because of billing and cost issues. Now the six space ISS residents will have to get in line to use the back-up toilet in the Russian part of the station. The pump separator on the malfunctioning toilet has apparently flooded, and ESA astronaut Frank De Winne is the guy tasked with putting his plumbing skills to work on short notice. 'We don't yet know the extent of the problem,' says flight director Brian Smith, adding that the toilet troubles were 'not going to be an issue' for now."

219 comments

  1. Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, now we know what hit Jupiter...

    1. Re:Uh oh... by fia · · Score: 1

      Call Wallowitz to fix it.

    2. Re:Uh oh... by Higaran · · Score: 1

      I thought that they did already, I guess that the solution wasn't implemeted yet.

    3. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, now we know what hit Jupiter...

      Did it come from Uranus?

    4. Re:Uh oh... by evan_arrrr! · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, Urectum.

    5. Re:Uh oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rectum? he almost killed 'em!

  2. Shuttle Toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They can't use the shuttle toilet that much, since it has to dump waste water overboard periodically. They can't do this while docked.

    1. Re:Shuttle Toilet by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      With enough powdered orange squash, maybe they won't notice that the waste water isn't being ejected?

      Maybe they can wee in an airlock and explosively depressurise it... I'm all up for a game of Pee Clayshoot!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Shuttle Toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTS:

      Last year a Russian cosmonaut complained that he was no longer allowed to use the US toilet because of billing and cost issues.

      More to the point, WTF are they doing -- using pay toilets that don't accept rubles?

  3. fed up... by irving47 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is anyone else just completely fed up with NASA and the ISS and our essentially stagnant space program? Most of the stories over the last few years have been:
    Weather-related delays. (yawn)
    Toilet malfunctions (a technology that should have been figured out, oh, say... 30 years ago?)
    #(&$ing FOAM insulation that has been documented as inferior to the original version in use 25 years ago, because of some environmental concerns. Sure, we could go back to the old version for the last 3 or 4 flights, but hey, it's only people's lives at stake, right?

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
    1. Re:fed up... by Mercano · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, in the Apollo days, urine was just dumped overboard. The service module's fuel cells made more then enough water as a byproduct of electrical production. Pretty much the same setup for the shuttle; in fact, the shuttle will typically offload extra water onto the station before departing. The station uses solar panels for electricity. Good news: no need to haul up liquid hydrogen and oxygen to supply electrical power. Bad news: no more free water source, especially once we discontinue the shuttle. Orion, Soyuz, Progress, ATV, and even SpaceX's Dragon all use solar power. This means we now need reclaim as much water from urine, rather then just dumping it, hence the toilet all of the sudden becomes a much more complex piece of equipment.

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    2. Re:fed up... by Comatose51 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's easy to criticize when none of us here are experts. Criticize, offer an alternative, and do it all in front of experts then it's worth something. Your statement can easily be changed to be directed at computers and IT. From my past life in IT, I still remember how annoyed users were when the email server went down or there was some networking issue. They couldn't understand why they were restricted from doing certain things or why we had a password policy. One could ask where are our 3D displays? Where are the computers that can understand human voice? Speaking? That's so easy even a 3 year old can do it. Computer vision? What's so hard about that? Again, any child can do it.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    3. Re:fed up... by beckett · · Score: 4, Insightful

      sorry the NASA channel can't hold your attention like Starship Troopers, Doctor Who, or Jack Bauer killing space terrorists, but this is what space travel is about. it's expensive, dangerous, careful, and this time, really shitty.

    4. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am completely satisfied with boring, hum-drum, run of the mill, nothing out of the ordinary news reports regarding NASA.

      Why?

      Because when the stories aren't of the above variety they tend to be things like "Shuttle Challenger explodes 73 seconds into flight" or "Shuttle Columbia breaks up over Texas on reentry."

      I'll take the boring reports any day of the week thank you very much.

    5. Re:fed up... by Comatose51 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We really have to give credit to NASA and the other space agencies for making manned space flight relatively safe. Compared to the early days such as the lead up to Mercury and landing on the moon, recent space flights have been safe and thus mundane. We did lose two shuttles but averaged over the total number of flights, it's a positive trend. I guess NASA is not failing spectacularly enough for some people. Toilet failure? That's just news for nerds and only nerds.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    6. Re:fed up... by getto+man+d · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      sorry the NASA channel can't hold your attention like Starship Troopers, Doctor Who, or Jack Bauer killing space terrorists, but this is what space travel is about. it's expensive, dangerous, careful, and this time, really shitty.

      What I believe he is saying is where are the articles about NASA breakthroughs in science, whether new technology or general discovery? NASA now is just a dinosaur waiting for ze meteors. When the space program first started the 'geniuses' were fresh out of college grads full of innovation; we can all appreciate the fruit of their labor. I dare you to step in any NASA lab (or in fact any gov't research lab) and find that now.

      I wouldn't want my tax dollars to be wasted frivolously...but nowadays that's a moot point.

    7. Re:fed up... by beckett · · Score: 1

      there's been 127 shuttle flights and 2 explosions. If once every 63 times you drove your car to work it blew up, killing your whole family, that's not really that safe at all.

      relatively safe compared to "how it used to be", but "how it used to be" was we travelled a lot farther with a lot less.

      i give credit to NASA for innovating under ever tighter purse strings, and unfortunately its the manned flights that are impacted the most.

    8. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way things are going the idea of going to mars seem more distant. Not in my lifetime.

    9. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is anyone else just completely fed up with NASA and the ISS and our essentially stagnant space program? Most of the stories over the last few years have been:

      remember that cowboy president who wasted time and money with illegal-revenge-wars and delayed progress everywhere?

    10. Re:fed up... by WarJolt · · Score: 0

      You have to choose between NASA or public health-care. This is an oversimplification, but I think NASA has brought us far as a nation. Tell your senator where you think the priorities should be.

    11. Re:fed up... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1, Interesting

          In case you haven't been keeping score, the space program has been stagnant for decades.

          The "Space Shuttle" program was conceived in the late 1960's and brought to life in the early 1970's. It's first flight was in 1981. So, the most advanced spacecraft humanity has is 28 years old.

          The "International Space Station" platform was announced in 1993, and orbital assembly began in 1998. The base of it is 11 years old.

          I was discussing the space program with some folks not too long ago. We discussed several things about it.

          If NASA designs and builds the absolutely latest greatest spacecraft, with the ability to fly deep into space at the fastest we can conceive now, AND handle life support (air, water, food, etc) for an infinite time, how good would it be?

          We are always discovering new little things about any technology. What's the huge difference between a 1920's car and a 2009 car? Not a lot other than electronics and plastics. The fundamentals of the car are still the same, yet the performance and safety has substantially increased.

          If we had built newer and better spacecraft every year since our first manned space flight in the early 1960's, we'd have over 40 generations of spacecraft. Just since the inception of the Space Shuttle program, we should have 28 newer generations of spacecraft, each with improvements from the previous designs.

          The theoretical max speed and infinite lifesupport spacecraft that was launched in 1985 would have been superseded by a much bigger and faster one by 1990, and for the astronauts who were speeding off to check out the next solar system, they would have already been picked up by the 1990 ship, then the 1995 ship. The probably would have been picked up and returned back to earth by the 2000 ship, because that old technology was so slow. By 2005 it would have been towed back and put in a museum. Instead, virtually every human on the planet hasn't had an opportunity to leave, and even if they did leave the atmosphere (or most of it), they had nowhere to go. There is no Moon, Mars, or Io colony yet. Humans haven't even been there yet.

          People expect a new cell phone every few months, and cell phones have gone from being an expensive brick, to being a tiny piece of electronics that easily fits on your pocket that everyone has.

          Why hasn't the space program become the same thing?

          It's partly because of the government control over space. If there were a financial incentive, corporations would already have their spacecraft going. The governments are also a major cause of the problem. If the governments of the world had been cooperating since day 1, things would be substantially different. There were some great moves made because the US and USSR were competing to get the bigger better craft up. After that died, so did our serious advancement.

          I'm not saying eliminate NASA or the other space agencies. Consider NASA like the FAA for space. The FAA doesn't own or fly many of their own planes, but they sure know just about everything about every aircraft up there. If the FAA owned and operated every aircraft, there would be maybe 6 commuter flights daily instead of the world wide network of flights that we have available now. Why do we accept this?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    12. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, comparing commuting to work to space shuttle flights... talk about apples and oranges.

    13. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think that NASA's budget, even at the height of the Apollo days, would do anything to fund a public health system, you're high as a kite. NASA's funding is simply tiny compared to practically anything else.

    14. Re:fed up... by killthepoor187 · · Score: 1

      I'm fed up with the budget cuts NASA keeps having to endure.

    15. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who's commuting to the space station and back?

    16. Re:fed up... by Revenger75 · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the time for some Fremen stillsuits...

    17. Re:fed up... by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      With two catastrophic failures out of 127 STS missions flown, they are achieving well within the original estimates.

      When the program was being designed, it was estimated there would be a 1 in 75 "disaster potential."

    18. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's way safer odds than being president of the USA, and people still want that job!

    19. Re:fed up... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      In other words, if your profession is extremely dangerous and anything someone might deem exciting is actually at the very least life threatening to you, you crave boring.

      Nothing is as successful as a boring space mission.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:fed up... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      With two catastrophic failures out of 127 STS missions flown, they are achieving well within the original estimates.

      When the program was being designed, it was estimated there would be a 1 in 75 "disaster potential."

      2/127 is not less than 1/75

      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
    21. Re:fed up... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because we're nowhere near the technical stability and sophistication of cellphones and airplanes with spacecraft, and because there's by far less money in the latter.

      Space flight is, after all, rocket science. It's expensive, it's dangerous, and in the wrong hands it's easily turned into a weapon. One of mass distraction if you really want to. Saying a government should not at the very least stay on top of the latter would essentially mean that you, as a government, would readily hand over the spot on top of the weapons food chain to corporations. It's already bad enough as it is, their economic power is already superior to that of governments, we needn't hand them military superiority as well.

      But I'm sure they wouldn't even want it. Space flight still has a lot of basic research to do. Something that does not translate well into revenue, thus something a private corporation would not readily invest in. Private businesses are usually great when it comes to taking existing technologies and making them more efficient and more accessible. They suck at coming up with new ideas.

      What you suggest would essentially cast our current situation concerning space travel in stone. We'd forever and a day use rockets to get mass up into orbit, we'd use ablative shields to protect against reentry heat, but we would not try to find "better" propulsion systems or find groundbreaking new ways to deal with the troubles of atmosphere.

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

      You should really provide a source for that statement...

    23. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, relatively safe considering they're sitting on a couple of tonnes of highly explosive fuel, in what is essentially a bloody giant missile with passenger seats.

    24. Re:fed up... by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

      Might have been 2 accidents in 127 missions, but if you look at it in terms of distance it is very safe ... (This is how airline statistics are made to look safe ...) IE: 127 flights, at say 100 orbits each. Each orbit is roughly 36000 kilometres. -> 3600000 * 100 * 127 = 457,200,000. Therefore one accident per 225 million kilometres. This sounds relatively safe to me!

    25. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's easy to criticize when none of us here are experts

      This is Slasdot.

      We're all experts.

    26. Re:fed up... by dkf · · Score: 1

      When the program was being designed, it was estimated there would be a 1 in 75 "disaster potential."

      2/127 is not less than 1/75

      True, but we don't know that 2/127 is the failure rate, and 2/127 is not massively out of line with 1/75 either. But we won't have a better estimate for the real risk until later, presumably when the shuttle programme finishes (we won't have a large enough number more flights to get the uncertainty in the risk down much).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    27. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that dumping stuff overboard is not much of a problem when you're heading to the moon, but a bag of frozen urine is a massive navigational hazard in earth orbit. A whole cloud of waste material following the ISS could be a problem.

    28. Re:fed up... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      True, but we don't know that 2/127 is the failure rate

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_missions

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger_disaster

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

      I'm not sure what you mean by that.

      2/127 is not massively out of line with 1/75 either.

      The claim I was responding to was "they are achieving well within the original estimates" of 1/75.

      "is not massively out of line with" != "well within"

      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
    29. Re:fed up... by Kokuyo · · Score: 1

      Whether you carry oxygen and hydrogen up there or water doesn't really make a difference, does it? Furthermore, is the product of fuel cells not pure water, meaning completely free of any kinds of minerals? Drinking that as it is isn't particularly healthy either.

    30. Re:fed up... by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Toilet failure? That's just news for nerds and only nerds.

      It also reminds us that space travel isn't only about the latest engines, the best computers, the rocket science and other esoteric stuff, but about some really basic problems that we still have to solve if we want to really travel into space, not just around our little globe.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    31. Re:fed up... by Poingggg · · Score: 1

      Whether you carry oxygen and hydrogen up there or water doesn't really make a difference, does it?

      Just the small difference that you need pretty heavy metal cylinders to transport liquid gases and the risks of leakage/explosion etc. are just a tad higher. But other than that....no.

      --
      What person will donate an airborne act of love?
    32. Re:fed up... by E++99 · · Score: 1

      I fail to see this positive trend. No astronauts were killed during any of the Mercury, Gemini or Apollo space flights. (Though 3 were killed during a testing procedure in the Apollo program.) 14 have been killed in Space Shuttle space flights.

    33. Re:fed up... by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No there is a difference between the Russia and American space program. The way I see it the Russians are able to do things, whereas American's tend to run into roadblocks. Why? Simple answer KISS! If you look at the Russian space program you would think that nothing has changed since their stuff seems so old. Yet their approach is if it works keep it! Whereas many in America tend to say, "oh look at this shiny new toy we must use it." Look at the space shuttle. Great idea, wonderful, and advanced. ooops nothing to use after 2010! Russians, still use rockets and look they are becoming the workhorses of the world space program. And did we forget the Russians are the first ones to take civilians into space thus commercializing it? What I am pointing out is that NASA is brighter, but is lacking in execution. Whereas Russians are not as cutting edge and executing just fine...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    34. Re:fed up... by vlm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Furthermore, is the product of fuel cells not pure water, meaning completely free of any kinds of minerals? Drinking that as it is isn't particularly healthy either.

      Pure urban legend that distilled water is bad for you. It required the assumption that all tap water is the same, however each tap water source is wildly different.

      Also, not all tap water is safe to drink, even in the "first world". I live very near a subcontinental divide, and on the east side which drains into the great lakes, I can drink slightly filtered lake water, you know, the lake that we dump untreated sewage into each time it rains and med waste washes ashore every time the wind blows in from the lake, and which very recently killed hundreds due to a cryptosporidium outbreak, or on the west side of the divide which drains into the mighty mississip, ultra-deep wells which are actually pretty healthy except for the off the charts radium level. Or there are the shallow wells in rural areas with off the charts fertilizer and insecticide levels. But somehow, those three options are supposed to be safer than purified distilled H2O.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    35. Re:fed up... by jackbird · · Score: 1

      and which very recently killed hundreds due to a cryptosporidium outbreak

      Source? I found a reference to "the only documented outbreak in the Great Lakes since record-keeping began in 1978" happening in 2002 and sickening 44 people (with no deaths), but nothing involving even one death, let alone hundreds.

    36. Re:fed up... by j-turkey · · Score: 1

      Might have been 2 accidents in 127 missions, but if you look at it in terms of distance it is very safe ... (This is how airline statistics are made to look safe ...) IE: 127 flights, at say 100 orbits each. Each orbit is roughly 36000 kilometres. -> 3600000 * 100 * 127 = 457,200,000. Therefore one accident per 225 million kilometres. This sounds relatively safe to me!

      Commercial air travel is made to look safe? You seem to imply that commercial air travel is not as safe as one common metric suggests. Just because deaths per million miles travel is used doesn't mean that flights per fatal crash is not. Try this out: as of 2008, only 0.47 hull losses per million commercial flights. Sounds pretty safe to me.

      --

      -Turkey

    37. Re:fed up... by that+IT+girl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Toilet malfunctions (a technology that should have been figured out, oh, say... 30 years ago?)"

      Yes, because things we understand and "have figured out" never go wrong. It's not like modern car engines break down or water pipes in houses burst. And I'm REALLY glad computers never break, then I might have to work, or something.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    38. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relatively safe??? For the shuttle, they design an O-ring on the booster that has to fail for a while to work! The force of the exhaust had to pull the O-ring out of a recess and then move into position to force a seal. If the ring is too cold and inflexible, it doesn't seal. Hence, Challenger.

    39. Re:fed up... by PIBM · · Score: 4, Informative

      Feeling lucky on google with cryptosporidium outbreak:

      in 1993 .... This abnormal condition at the plant lasted from March 23 through April 8, after which, the plant was shut down. Over the span of approximately two weeks, 403,000 of an estimated 1.61 million residents in the Milwaukee area (of which 880,000 were served by the malfunctioning treatment plant) became ill with the stomach cramps, fever, diarrhea and dehydration caused by the pathogen. Over 100 deaths were attributed to this outbreak,

    40. Re:fed up... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Take the kiss solution on a trip to Mars and see what happens. If employing Russian approach, you will need a great deal more water to make it there (which means many more launches just to stock up). Personally, I would prefer to have lots of stocks AND the ability to recycle, so that I can go as long as possible.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    41. Re:fed up... by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      If we had built newer and better spacecraft every year since our first manned space flight in the early 1960's, we'd have over 40 generations of spacecraft. Just since the inception of the Space Shuttle program, we should have 28 newer generations of spacecraft, each with improvements from the previous designs.

      I think you underestimate how prohibitively expensive that ammount of design would cost. The shuttle cost billions to design, and each design would require a similar investment.

      More importantly, these designs take time. One year is not enough time to develop a space flight system that will be reliable, cost effective, and better than the previous design. Rushing the next design will make things worse, not better.

      Perhaps a new flight vehicle every decade is a better goal. That should be enough time to learn from the previous vehicle while still advancing the technology. Still takes money, so tell your Congress-critter to put more money into NASA (and what to take it away from).

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    42. Re:fed up... by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Yes, and 127 is an enormous sample.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance

    43. Re:fed up... by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Yes, and 127 is an enormous sample.

      Actually, it isn't a sample at all.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_(statistics)
      "In statistics, a sample is a subset of a population. Typically, the population is very large, making a census or a complete enumeration of all the values in the population impractical or impossible. The sample represents a subset of manageable size."

      127 is the total number of shuttle missions. 2/127 is the current failure rate. 2/127 > 1/75. You made an incorrect statement. Deal with it.

      --
      http://marriedmansexlife.com/
    44. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      From tfa: The main toilet, a multi-million-dollar Russian-built unit, was flown up and installed on the US side of the space station last year.

    45. Re:fed up... by camperdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nothing is as successful as a boring space mission.

      Unfortunately, the way it plays out in the media is "Nothing is as boring as a successful space mission". So when the government pulls the loose change out of the white house sofas to give to NASA, there is an outcry about wasting taxpayer dollars.

      NASA is in a PR bind. If things go smoothly, they appear boring, and the public says "Why should we fund this?". If there's a few glitches, then they look like a mickey-mouse outfit, and the public says "Why should we fund this?". If there's a major disaster, the public says "Why should we fund this?". The only way NASA comes out good is when it is smashing records, and that will only take you so far.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    46. Re:fed up... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Take the kiss solution on a trip to Mars and see what happens. If employing Russian approach, you will need a great deal more water to make it there (which means many more launches just to stock up). Personally, I would prefer to have lots of stocks AND the ability to recycle, so that I can go as long as possible.

      What makes you think that simple systems can't recycle? Maybe they can't recycle as well. And you forget "in site resource utilization", using the resources of the land as a means to reduce the complexity of a project. Mars has water so we can reduce the water demand from a mission.

    47. Re:fed up... by st0nes · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Why? Simple answer KISS! If you look at the Russian space program you would think that nothing has changed since their stuff seems so old.

      I'm not sure whether or not the following anecdote is true, but if it is it confirms your theory. It is alleged that the US space program back in the early days of the shuttle spent several million dollars developing a ballpoint pen that would work reliably in microgravity. The Soviets used a pencil.

      --
      Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis
    48. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, not true.

      http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

    49. Re:fed up... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      K
      The current system IS a simple system. The previous implications was that there would not be recycling (the approach that Russia takes). OTH, this system is not really made for mars itself, but for the trip. It is meant to operate in little to no G's.

      And as to mars having water, You know is that is is located at the extreme locations. The air itself is dry (much dryer than anyplace on earth). If I were going there, I would want plenty of CLEAN supplies available. In addition, I would want it recycled until we had several water plants in place.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    50. Re:fed up... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Because we're nowhere near the technical stability and sophistication of cellphones...

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa, that's a real knee slappe...hello? hello?....can you still hear me?.......

    51. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ''NASA is brighter''

      And yet they don't see the benefits of using proven technology.

    52. Re:fed up... by icebrain · · Score: 1

      Space flight still has a lot of basic research to do. Something that does not translate well into revenue, thus something a private corporation would not readily invest in. Private businesses are usually great when it comes to taking existing technologies and making them more efficient and more accessible. They suck at coming up with new ideas.

      I wouldn't say they "suck at coming up with new ideas". They're actually pretty good at it, so long as there's a decent potential for near- to moderate-term return on the investment. The problem is that space technology often doesn't have a return until well in the future, if at all. No investor or corporation is going to put billions into developing spacecraft and space stations if they aren't going to get a return for decades.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    53. Re:fed up... by Minwee · · Score: 4, Informative

      the US space program back in the early days of the shuttle spent several million dollars developing a ballpoint pen that would work reliably in microgravity. The Soviets used a pencil.

      First off, it was a private US company that developed the pressurized ballpoint pen. They donated a few samples to NASA long before the space shuttle flew just so they could call it the "space pen". The US space program never paid a penny for it.

      Secondly, what do you think happens when you write with a pencil in free fall? Where does all of that highly conductive graphite dust go? What about a broken tip? Does it know what could happen when it works its way into all those control panels full of exposed electrical switches? In an atmosphere which was still over 60% oxygen?

      It's not good. What the Soviets used was a _grease_ pencil, and even they switched to the Fisher Space Pen when it became available.

    54. Re:fed up... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      If once every 63 times you drove your car to work it blew up, killing your whole family, that's not really that safe at all.

      How about if it blew up once every 63 times you drove to SPACE ? Sounds a little more impressive.

    55. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that math doesn't quite work out...

    56. Re:fed up... by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Well the distilled water bad for you theory relies on the fact that distilled water is hypotonic, and would absorb minerals from the body. According to a quick google search this is absolutely true, only the minerals taken away are usually waste products excreted from the body's cells.

      As for tap and mineral water's "healthy" contents, in addition to the dangers mentioned by the parent, minerals found water are often inorganic and bad for the body. There are much better sources for Sodium and Calcium than drinking water. Most of the body's mineral requirements are met with food, some of these minerals may be water soluble, but the water isn't the source.

      What intrigues me here is that NASA astronauts are constantly monitored for what they eat, how much they drink, etc. So if distilled IS better for you, we should notice an improvement at some point, assuming the water they previously shipped up from Earth was just Florida tap water.

    57. Re:fed up... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well the distilled water bad for you theory relies on the fact that distilled water is hypotonic, and would absorb minerals from the body.

      If that were the case then all water this side of Gatorade would be "bad" for you. I'm using you are using the usual definition of hypotonic, that is less salt load than blood. Stuff doesn't "leach" out of you. It's actively filtered or not. Give the body a break. It's smarter than you are. As is often mentioned on morning rounds "The dumbest kidney is smarter than the brightest intern".

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    58. Re:fed up... by richard.cs · · Score: 1

      Whether you carry oxygen and hydrogen up there or water doesn't really make a difference, does it?

      Just the small difference that you need pretty heavy metal cylinders to transport liquid gases and the risks of leakage/explosion etc. are just a tad higher. But other than that....no.

      Those are the disadvantages, the advantages however are that transporting hydrogen and oxygen provides a very large amount of energy with a moderate increase in mass over transporting water. This obviously assumes there are suitable fuel cells on board which can convert this to electrical energy.

    59. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets see, if your car blew up only twice in hundreds of millions of miles of travel, not to mention a top speed of thousands of miles an hour, that might not be too bad.

    60. Re:fed up... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why the f. do some people always have to take sides? It's so stupid!
      We're on this planet and especially in this space station together!
      So how about working as a *team*?

      Take the best from the Russians (reliability and ability to go trough rough times), the USA (high tech, money?, etc.), ESA (any ESA person here, so comment on their strengths?), Japan (dito) etc.

      I bet the astronauts themselves are already doing it, and constantly banging their heads on the walls, because of us down here just not getting it!

      Sometimes, I wish something like the "wakeup call" in Watchmen would really happen...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    61. Re:fed up... by recharged95 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look at the turning point: 1969.
      After that year: billions of dollars every year since then,thousands of people employed, dedicated engineers and the brightest minds in academia (you know, it's 2009), relatively safe would be considered pretty sad with the amount of theory and materials science we knew back in 1960.
      That with the Russians using proven concepts on a showstring budget...
      Give credit where credit's due, not for the sake that someone or some gov't agency was put in control of it.

    62. Re:fed up... by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      Normal water does leach minerals out of your body. Just not many of them. See Wikipedia, as usual. It's presumably more pronounced with distilled water but I wouldn't like to comment on whether it's a real concern or just one of those 'well technically...' facts.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    63. Re:fed up... by IronChef · · Score: 1

      Once again, we are really seeing the difference between Russian and American engineering culture.

      When it came time to develop a toilet for the ISS, NASA ended up running with an absurdly complicated $91 million dollar model designed by Lockheed-Martin (certain subsystems were provided by Raytheon).

      The toilet has over 1500 moving parts, consumes 800W of power when in use, and took one hundred engineers six years to manufacture. Despite this impressive pedigree, the toilet remains a fussy piece of equipment. To this day peanuts and certain other troublesome foods are actually prohibited on the ISS.

      The Russians, of course, just used a pencil.

      (Well, none of that is true, but I never let that stop a good story and neither should you.)

    64. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From tfa: The main toilet, a multi-million-dollar Russian-built unit, was flown up and installed on the US side of the space station last year.

      I don't get your post. I would say the Russian's plumbers made a great execution of this scam.

    65. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The toilet that broke is a Russian unit?

      How does that foot taste retard?

    66. Re:fed up... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Everyone know that if you want an expensive fancy toilet that does everything from wash your backside to make you dinner all while playing soothing waterfall sounds from the Dolby surround... you shop in Japan. Why would you ever go to Russia for a toilet, particularly after you just got done telling their cosmonauts that they had to "hold it" until they get back to their side of the ISS?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    67. Re:fed up... by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      The economics section on the news showed a graph of the NASA budget over time, to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the moon landing. It had two big spikes in the 60s, and has been gradually declining ever since. That's why the space program has been stagnating.

    68. Re:fed up... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Water intoxication really isn't 'leaching' of electrolytes out of your system. It's overwhelming the kidney - gut - brain homeostatic mechanisms to keep electrolyte balance under tight control. It is, in fact, difficult to do which is just one more bit of evidence how are bodies are smarter than we are.

      Don't worry about distilled water. Keep your essence pure.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    69. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviets used a pencil.

      This reminds me of a story about Lord Kelvin. He invented a tide recorder that used a float attached to a cord that went up from the water level and wrapped around a roller. The roller surface's back and forth, curved motion was changed by a mechanical linkage to the straight reciprocating motion of a carrier. The carrier had a pencil which laid down a trace on a moving band of paper, much like an EEG.

      When he first showed the recorder to the Royal Academy, he was criticized for not using the newly-invented fountain pen as the recording device. Kelvin replied, "There is adequate power in the sea to drive a pencil.

      I once came across, in the basement of a school I attended, a very old seismograph. The long arm of the device ended in a pointed piece of metal that looked like an old beer can opener. It was hinged to the arm so as to rest lightly on, and make a scratch on, the recording medium.

      The medium was a large smoked sheet of paper. It was fastened around a slowly rotating cylinder. The cylinder's axis was a long screw. As the cylinder rotated, the screw shifted it slightly so that the paper moved sideways a bit on each revolution so that each scratch line was offset from the line scratched on the previous revolution, thus producing the familiar pattern seen on modern seismogaphs.

      Perhaps most interesting was the separate device that produced the recording medium. It consisted of an eighteen inch wide smudge lamp. A narrow strip of wick ran the width of the device, much like a hurricane lamp stretched sideways. You loaded the fuel chamber with kerosene, trimmed the "wick" short and lit it. By adjusting the exposed height of the wick, you could get it to pour off a wide stream of soot. At that point, you used a pair of rollers on each side of the wick to draw a sheet of the paper across this soot stream, drawing the paper slowly enough to have a good, even layer of soot deposited on it, but not so slowly as to allow the paper to catch fire.

      Then, as the previous recording paper had linear scratching nearly to its finishing edge, it was removed and the newly-smudged paper was wrapped around the cylinder, the cylinder screw was "carriage-returned" to its starting position and the process was repeated.

    70. Re:fed up... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


      >What you suggest would essentially cast our current
      > situation concerning space travel in stone.

      Actually, I was suggesting taking our current space travel and expand on it. Every generation of anything is (or at least should be) better than the last. Mistakes will be made and learned from.

      There is lots of money to be made from space. No, I'm not suggesting mining the moon for cheese, but I am saying that there are a LOT of dollars to be had by expanding outward. No one reading this can afford a ticket to play in space. If there is anyone here who can, I could use a small loan of a few million dollars. :) What if tickets to space were available for $2,000. I'd be fairly confident a large percentage of Slashdot readers, and other folks world wide would scramble for them. What if the ticket didn't just take you to the edge of space and back? What if it made the colony on Mars accessible. What if it were to take you to the Heliopause? What if you could collect rare space gems caught in Saturn's rings? Nothing says love like a gemstone you plucked from the heavens yourself.

      Who's to say what we'd find out there with enough looking. Sure we've brought back a tiny sampling of what's in our own solar system. What we know of what's out there is nothing. Imagine dropping sensor packages from an observatory over Jupiter and finally seeing what's at ground level. Sure the first one didn't make it far (Galileo, 1995), but learning from mistakes and observations would eventually make something that could do it. Right now we'd spend billions to send a single test. What if the subsequent tests were "Drop this out the airlock and see what happens."

      There's lots of things to find out there, and we're still piddling around rather than exploring them. I don't want us locked into what we have, I want to have the opportunity to explore.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    71. Re:fed up... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          The answer isn't in the care and feeding of NASA. NASA is just another government agency. There are huge numbers of well paid workers, and fortunes that come and go through contracts that may never be fulfilled.

          Obviously cutting NASA back can't help at all. Throwing huge amounts into NASA likely won't happen either. It's a bureaucracy, and will live and die as such.

          I was going to cite one of the marvels of the 20th century in a previous post, but maybe it's better here. Edsel. The $400,000,000 abortion that Ford created.

          Government development budgets are shaped by political decisions. While the 12 million dollar pen is just an urban legand, Gemini Titan 3 did utilize $128 pencils. There are plenty of places that A is a great option, but B would work just fine. You know, if someone could build a "good enough" spacecraft for $1 million that could safely go up and back down, I'd be first in line to fly in it. The space shuttle costs roughly $1,700,000,000 ($1.7 billion), and all the costs divided among the launches, it costs roughly $1,500,000 ($1.5 million) per launch. Roughly $170,000,000,000 ($170 billion) has been spent on the Space Shuttle program so far.

          If I had a choice of standing in line to take the Mercedes limousine of spacecraft where only a handful existed in the world, or the family sedan version that 10,000 were being produced every year, it'd be nice to take the Mercedes, but I'd take anything that'll get me from point A to point S.

          The Shuttle was built as the redundant bloated do-all of space craft, and now that it's been done it was carved in stone. I'm not disputing the Shuttle is a really nifty piece of engineering, but we have a lot more to do than ego fluff our old technology. And no, the 1960's era capsule that is to replace the Shuttle is a freakin' joke.

          I'd be willing to bet if you took a couple dozen of the best engineers from NASA and told them "Look, we want something newer, better, faster, and massively reproducible, get it done. We won't ask questions, we just want results. Do it right this time, and you get to do it better next time. Use COTS when you can to keep costs and development time to a minimum", there would be some amazing progress done for an amazingly small fraction of what it cost before. I'd be willing to bet that they could get something manned in orbit and back in a year for under $100 million.

      FY 2008 NASA budget for space operations was $5.4 billion.
      FY 2009 NASA budget for space operations was $5.9 billion.
      FY 2010 NASA budget request for space operations is $6.1 billion.

          Anyone wishing to argue this point, especially with the government, has to give me open discretion to which engineers to use, and no questions asked until they're done and the work is given to the public domain by the end of the 1st FY. Yes, it's the American tax dollar, so the public deserves to have everything involved when it's done.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    72. Re:fed up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... recent space flights have been safe and thus mundane.

      Speaking of mundane, someone did a great cartoon when John Glenn returned to space some time back. There was a picture of Glenn looking disgusted when another astronaut offered him a latte from a dispenser on the wall of the vehicle.

    73. Re:fed up... by khallow · · Score: 1

      The current system IS a simple system. The previous implications was that there would not be recycling (the approach that Russia takes). OTH, this system is not really made for mars itself, but for the trip. It is meant to operate in little to no G's.

      I don't see how to use it as a counterexample to "KISS" then.

      And as to mars having water, You know is that is is located at the extreme locations. The air itself is dry (much dryer than anyplace on earth). If I were going there, I would want plenty of CLEAN supplies available. In addition, I would want it recycled until we had several water plants in place.

      Extreme locations? They've seen indications of subsurface ice in virtually every low lying area on Mars (which are likely to be early visits due to higher atmospheric pressure and temperature) as well as both ice caps. Don't see a problem with the rest though.

    74. Re:fed up... by watergeus · · Score: 1

      Do they pee in the same thing as they shit?

  4. I saw this somewhere... by LeoPercepied · · Score: 1, Funny

    There are lots of jokes to be made here.... but didn't this already happened on "The big bang theory"?

    1. Re:I saw this somewhere... by Amiralul · · Score: 2, Informative

      Season 2, Episode 22, "The Classified Materials Turbulence".

  5. oops by margaret · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's all Howard Wolowitz's fault.

    1. Re:oops by scott_karana · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent up, toilet failure was the dilemma in the excellent sitcom The Big Bang Theory.

    2. Re:oops by Imagix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or the method by which the main character was killed in Dead Like Me.

    3. Re:oops by lilo_booter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't make jokes. It's a very important scientific breakthrough for two reasons. Number one....and number two.

    4. Re:oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be the singularly funniest comment I have seen in five years of /. I suspect it may have been grandma's meatloaf!

    5. Re:oops by Mortiss · · Score: 1

      Here is a link to the part of an episode that deals with the space toilet repair. Watch, learn (and laugh): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnH8qetZdSM

    6. Re:oops by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I've always had a dream to drop a deuce on the ISS and clog the toilet.

      It's good to have goals.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  6. Easy Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    When the Russians aren't looking, go take a dump on their side of the space station.

  7. Shite Plot! by dotslashdot · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm waiting for Hollywood to make a movie about sending Joe the Plumber into space to prevent a Russian chocolate rain of terror raining down on the United States from the ISS. Starring Bruce Willis as Joe the Plumber.

    1. Re:Shite Plot! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      I hadn't considered that interpretation of the Tay Zonday song.

      Now I'm seriously concerned by the lyric ""The prisons make you wonder where it went" I guess that's why they invented soap-on-a-rope.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Shite Plot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chocolate Rain
      Some stay dry and others feel the pain

  8. Highest paid plumber by ls671 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, I guess the plumber who is going to fix it could go on record as one of the highest paid plumber ever !

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Highest paid plumber by laejoh · · Score: 1

      How did Frank De Winne end up as a plumber? Well, it's simple... Instead of having said 'shit' when the toilet stopped working the guys in the ISS said 'Belgium'. Frank just thought they called him. With apologies to Douglas Adams.

    2. Re:Highest paid plumber by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

      at 350 kilometres up, he'd probably be the highest plumber too...

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
    3. Re:Highest paid plumber by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Hrm not so sure about that, I knew some plumbers that were stoners... wait... wrong kind of high!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    4. Re:Highest paid plumber by loufoque · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily, some plumbers make a ridiculous amount of money.

    5. Re:Highest paid plumber by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      But what if he didn't have the parts in the capsule? He'd have to go direct to the supplier! 3 day turnaround at best, luv.

      I bet he'd ask for a brew, but knowing how precious water is he'd probably bring a thermos. Decadent fool.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  9. Crew Fix. by Usually+Unlucky+ · · Score: 2, Informative

    They have 13 people up there with strong engineering and scientific backgrounds, shouldn't one of them be able to fix it. Toilet repair should be mandatory for the Russian crew members from now on, at least as they are still using the faulty Soviet MIR surplus toilets.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Crew Fix. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      Yes, the "Russian crew members" should be forced to all be plumbers to resolve problems like this. That'll sure be useful if the US and Russia ever have any political differences. Maybe every American sent into Space should be trained on all skills they could possibly need up there, so they can deal with any situation at hand instead. I mean it's not rocket science to make sure your crew is prepared for things like this, where as it's pretty damn stupid to depend on someone else doing it (although this an increasingly common attitude these days)

      --
      I like muppets.
    2. Re:Crew Fix. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it fantastic, when a post really understand the spirit and principles of international collaboration... :-)

    3. Re:Crew Fix. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps NASA should pre-pack Korma instead of Madras for monday evenings.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Crew Fix. by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Maybe Russia should institute the same policy the US did and not allow Americans to use their toilet because of cost issues.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  10. Coincidence? I think not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something May Have Just Hit Jupiter

    I think I know what it was :)

  11. Re:second post! by Tuna_Shooter · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shit happens.....

    --
    *--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
  12. Ironic by dragisha · · Score: 1

    This story is dripping with, well, irony. Costly toilet breaks down, and US crew has to use magic word in Russian quarters, that same people they barred from their high tech whizbang gadget of toilet. What price Russians put on toilet usage now?

    I agree with another poster who hints there is nothing in recent ISS news what is really newsworthy. Toilet policies and breakddowns....

    --
    http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
  13. Call the smell good plumber. by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    Most problems can be fixed for $99.

    --
    Fight Spammers!
    1. Re:Call the smell good plumber. by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Sure, but they start billing hourly the moment they leave the office, and their per mile charge isn't anything to sneeze at either.

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    2. Re:Call the smell good plumber. by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Not to mention any time taken for pulling permits, which are required for most new work and some replacement work. It'd be hilarious if the plumbers union blocked the repair of the ISS toilet because a union plumber isn't doing the work, but I doubt that will happen - its a Russian built toilet.

          The part that bugs me is city inspectors (the reason for the permit) rarely check the work done - they just want the money. My wife's duplex obviously didn't get inspected properly because both plumbing and electrical work violated 1977 code (the year when it was built). The stove wiring alone is grounds to sue (12 gauge wire for a 220V - the casing was already melted in some places when I found it), but the construction company went under in the 1980s. About 3/4 of the outlets had the wrong polarity, as well. The plumbing wasn't as bad, but there were several improperly done connections like ABS to PVC glue connections, which probably was done by the previous homeowner and not the home builder, but a couple of those connections I had to tear down ceiling in the basement to see, so I'm not sure (actually, I would have never noticed, but the spray ceiling had to be torn down to meet code that requires accessibility to plumbing).

          When the duplex got converted to rental property the inspector found over 200 code violations, and only about 30 of them were newer than 1977 (stuff like backflow valves). We had a month when the property was both homestead and rental so I pulled permits and did most of the work, saving about $2400 (and there are some really dumb permits - changing the bathroom ceiling fan required both an electrical and mechanical permit even though the mechanical part is self contained - thankfully I only had to pull one permit for all the work). If I did the work today I'd need to legally call a plumber or electrician (not that I do - I risk the $1000 fine and/or jail time to fix silly stuff like a toilet running, and yes, by law I need to call a plumber for that because it is rental property).

  14. 13 astronauts? by Amiralul · · Score: 1

    I guess 13 means bad-luck one more time for NASA...

  15. Just dump it outside by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 0

    Why not empty it into a bad, and drop it outside?

    Put it in a hefty bag, then put it toward earth or the sun, it will burn up.

    --
    Fight Spammers!
    1. Re:Just dump it outside by Usually+Unlucky+ · · Score: 1

      It might catch back up to you in a few orbits and hit you from behind.

      --
      -
    2. Re:Just dump it outside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting it to sun requires about 40 km/s velocity if I remember correctly. Sun is not that easy to reach.

    3. Re:Just dump it outside by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

      Maybe. I didn't think of the amount thrust to get out of orbit towards the sun. Just throw it at New Jersey so that nobody will notice the shit raining down on them.

      I know its hard to aim that well, and you'd have to avoid all the other junk. Send up a politician, they are good at throwing shit around.

      --
      Fight Spammers!
  16. Do it outside by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its a good thing their airlocks are still working. The problem is finding a bush to go behind...

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  17. who makes these friggin things by deathguppie · · Score: 1, Troll

    For Christ's sake. Who the hell builds these things. We are obviously spending a lot of time and money to put this embarrassingly expensive thing in to space only to have it crap out on us. (excuse the pun). But seriously, I'm starting to think that NASA has become a joke..

    --
    once more into the breach
    1. Re:who makes these friggin things by Usually+Unlucky+ · · Score: 4, Informative

      "The main toilet, a multi-million-dollar Russian-built unit, was flown up and installed on the US side of the space station last year." -BBC

      --
      -
    2. Re:who makes these friggin things by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Waitwaitwait, that's Russian technology?

      *groan* Oh c'mon, where's the problem. Kick it a few times and it works again.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:who makes these friggin things by sledge_hmmer · · Score: 1

      In my best drunk Russian accent:

      "American components...Russian components...All made in Taiwan!"

    4. Re:who makes these friggin things by NotQuiteInsane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obligatory Armageddon quote:

      American components, Russian components, all made in Taiwan! :)

    5. Re:who makes these friggin things by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      *nostalgic sigh*

      Back in the good ol' days, you didn't only boot your computer if it didn't work...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:who makes these friggin things by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah yes, the Russians. A people renowned for their capacity to endure any hardship, their ability to get things done no matter how badly the system is broken... Let me tell you, there's lots of things you ought to admire about the Russians, sonny boy, but plumbing ain't one of 'em.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:who makes these friggin things by mcfatboy93 · · Score: 1

      Remember these things need to work in no gravity. the whole point behind NASA's work is that they need to make things that work in space while on earth.

      --
      Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
    8. Re:who makes these friggin things by pbhj · · Score: 1

      I'm going to guess the USA-ian components were specified in non-metric (do you call them Imperial in the US?) and converted to metric for production by the Taiwanese. Rounding errors mean all US plumbing is in metric but 1mm out with respect to the Russian components. Thus, seals leak, etc..

      Meanwhile why do they need a seat? Footstraps would do wouldn't they? I'd have thought you had a tube that using a personal adaptor snugs up between your ass cheeks and seals over your anus - as you crap you press a suction button to remove the faeces. Ditto for the piss tube sealing over your urethra. Deposit to an airlocked unit, extract and clean air and water, eject. Granted the water purifier will be bulky, but that toilet unit is huge.

      No, I have no clue what I'm on about, this is teh internetz, whaddya expect?

    9. Re:who makes these friggin things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waitwaitwait, that's Russian technology?

      *groan* Oh c'mon, where's the problem. Kick it a few times and it works again.

      No, no, no... You'll brake your foot that way. Use a sledgehammer! It's best and most accurate tool imaginable for any russian build stuff. You know, it works wonders on a Lada engine. The toilet shouldn't be much different - some shit with a fan.

  18. The MIR would have been perfect for this... by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if the MIR were still around, it would make the perfect outhouse!

    Though really, we need to develop still suit technology.

    --
    Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    1. Re:The MIR would have been perfect for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MIR's end of life problems appear to have overshadowed the fact that it was the most successful attempt at a long term presence in space before the ISS. Much longer lasting than that pinnacle of US engineering that crapped out all over Australia. The Russians contribute a vast amount of the mundane technology required to make ISS work as a proposition. It's kind of galling to see people still chiming out the same cold war mentality,

    2. Re:The MIR would have been perfect for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was the joke. The venerable 15 year old space station (at the time of it's death), reduced to a waste disposal facility... That would be akin to saying the Shroud of Turin would make a good sports towel.

      But yes, let us not forget who gave us over a decade of space habitation data. Really wish though that they had given the old girl a good send off in the form of a nice big boost into a longer term orbit. Preserve her as a living museum for future generations.

  19. Crapping OUT? by macraig · · Score: 1

    I think crapping OUT is the action one wants of a commode on a space station, no? Can you imagine the hilarity if it were to crap IN?

    1. Re:Crapping OUT? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can (lower picture)

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  20. Hate to be De Winne by Comatose51 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "ESA astronaut Frank De Winne is the guy tasked with putting his plumbing skills to work on short notice. 'We don't yet know the extent of the problem,' says flight director Brian Smith, adding that the toilet troubles were 'not going to be an issue' for now."

    So you've just blasted into space on top of a giant stick of explosives. You're in one of the most unique places in the world with an awesome windows view but you have to spend your time fixing the toilet. That would really ruin his day.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    1. Re:Hate to be De Winne by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Captain De Winne. You're in charge of fixing the... plumbing situation."

      "Oh come on! This is bullshit!"

      "We prefer the term 'toilet trouble' around here."

    2. Re:Hate to be De Winne by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

      You're in one of the most unique places in the world with an awesome windows view but you have to spend your time fixing the toilet.

      Everybody knows that outer space is actually under your bed and that the words "awesome" and "Windows" go next to each other.

    3. Re:Hate to be De Winne by screamphilling · · Score: 1

      I don't think I'd mind fixing a toilet in earth orbit so much. especially if it were one I had to use. I might not wanna be a fulltime space plumber. They'd probably make bank though.

    4. Re:Hate to be De Winne by Perf · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the instruction manual is in Russian.

    5. Re:Hate to be De Winne by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      Come on let's go Space Plumbin'


      With apologies to deep purple.

    6. Re:Hate to be De Winne by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the wonderful world of system administration.

    7. Re:Hate to be De Winne by jtev · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as the bank they are making isn't one that is getting communised by TARP money.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
  21. brutal but fair by beckett · · Score: 1

    i guess this is one way to find out who binged on all the dehydrated ice cream.

  22. Don't want to hit Hubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't want to taint the red shift with brown overtones, you know :)

  23. Revenge. by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, toilet craps on you.

    1. Re:Revenge. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A space station isn't something you can just dump something on, it's not a toilet.

  24. I heard what the problem was... by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

    Apparently the shit hit the fan a little bit too hard.

    --
    No sig today...
  25. i've seen this before... by underqualified · · Score: 0, Informative

    big bang theory? season 2? yeah. that's it.

  26. HANG a sign? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means in zero G.

    1. Re:HANG a sign? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hang" does not imply gravity you retards.

      Consider the definition for "hanging" a door.

  27. Oh... by sagematt · · Score: 1

    Well... shit.

  28. 0-G waste, not a pretty sight - KILL BuZZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen it, and it was Buzz Aldrin's.

  29. It's Worse Than They're Reporting by FrankDrebin · · Score: 1

    I think we've just explained Jupiter's black spot.

    --
    Anybody want a peanut?
  30. Doesn't bode well by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

    This doesn't bode well for manned trips further afield.

    We can talk all we want about sending multi-year manned missions to other planets, but we can't even build a reliable toilet!

    Yes, this makes good joke fodder, but something as simple as a toilet malfunction could spell disaster for a manned mission that is months out in space. I think a lot of the advocates of manned missions to other planets over-estimate the level of systems reliability that we can achieve and under-estimate the level of systems complexity and reliability necessary for manned inter-planetary missions vs. unmanned missions.

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    1. Re:Doesn't bode well by petermgreen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed, and that is why if we ever want to get a successfull manned trip to mars or beyond we really need a space station because a space station is the only way to get experiance dealing with theese sorts of problems.

      When the space station can go for years at a time without needing any unexpected stuff from earth that is the time to start considering a long distance manned mission.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  31. Fecoventilatory incident by UnixUnix · · Score: 1

    Thomas Pynchon envisioned shit hitting the fan, but never in such a globally spectacular manner. (With international repercussions no less)

  32. semen and hair. by bronney · · Score: 1

    I recall hearing a story where a college dorm's shower was clogged by semen and hair. uh...

  33. The engineers are investigating... by w0mprat · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... but so far have nothing to go on.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:The engineers are investigating... by BrightSpark · · Score: 1

      Those muscle-bound flyboys are looking into though.. what a waste.

    2. Re:The engineers are investigating... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      They've narrowed it down to two possibilities.

      But they're all pretty sure its Number two.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  34. I hope they are not circling Uranus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In search of Klingons...

  35. Doing it on a spacewalk by robinesque · · Score: 1

    means going in your diapers.

  36. Re:second post! by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 4, Funny

    The very name 'back-up toilet' evokes bad images. Especially in space. You can't just call Space RotoRooter, you know, if the plumbing clogs. Hey wait. Is there such a thing as an astronaut-plumber specialty? And if so, does NASA issue a suit with a butt crack window? And when they finish unclogging, are they flushed with pride at the accomplishment? Space can be tough; I cannot recall Darth Vader ever going to the bathroom, which may explain his terrible temperament. I'd go over to the Dark Side too, if I'd been constipated for 6 whole movies. No wonder they called it the Death Star, if it lacked toilets.

  37. Basic toilet DIY by rossi · · Score: 1

    Has anyone tried to "jiggle the handle?"

    --
    I want to meet the guy who invented beer and see whats he's up to now.
    1. Re:Basic toilet DIY by nerdonamotorcycle · · Score: 2, Funny

      More importantly, if they jiggle the handel, will it jiggle bach? After all, the toilet *is* baroquen.

  38. Fine prospects for a trip to Mars then.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    Just imagine, you're locked up in a tube full of explosives for a whole year with no option of getting some emergency delivery and you suddenly discover you have nowhere to go in more ways then one.

    "Oh shit" doesn't begin to cover it, I think..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  39. The thirteen curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Definitely, they should not have allowed the ISS to have a crew of 13.

    1. Re:The thirteen curse by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      ISS is meant to be just a research facility But surely the next SETI sponsored mission will have exactly 12 passengers when they leave.

  40. Alternative to waste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Other than recycling urine, wouldn't it be possible to use the waste as a propellant? I know it's disgusting, but why send people and their habitat into space, without making as much of it useful as possible?

    Sometimes I think we'd be better off today if NASA hadn't put people on the moon already. We'd be relying more on robots to do everything in space. The whole "return trip" could be 90% eliminated, and we'd be putting reusable stuff up there.

  41. Reminds me of a Dutch commercial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Houston, we've got a problem. Where do we go when we gotta go?"

  42. Shit happens by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    To IIS crew, don't panic, and keep a towel close. You don't know what will come next in Murphy's repertory.

  43. Re:second post! by kernelphr34k · · Score: 1

    I was thinking 'Shit out of luck' But yea, Shit happens too.

  44. problem solved by GuNgA-DiN · · Score: 1

    Step 1. -- you cut a hole in a box
    Step 2. -- you stick your ass on that box
    Step 3. -- whatever you do... don't have her open that box!

  45. Big Bang Theory episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The episode to look up is "Monopolar Expedition", it has advice to live by :)

    http://www.locatetv.com/tv/big-bang-theory/season-2/6265538

  46. Scenario has potential... by E++99 · · Score: 1

    I see a major motion picture with Tom Hanks and Gary Sinise.

  47. Hole in the wall by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    ...with low pressure on the other side could make for a fast ...er... evacuation. Just press your rear end to the fitting and open a valve for a second or so. Don't try this at home kids.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:Hole in the wall by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Funny

      You end up with frozen turds in the same orbit as the ISS.
      Astronaut looks out the window: "Somebody likes corn."

  48. I hope they are not orbiting Uranus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In search of Klingnons

  49. Contradictory summaries now? by argent · · Score: 2, Informative

    This one implies that the Russians were being discriminated against (Last year a Russian cosmonaut complained that he was no longer allowed to use the US toilet), but the linked summary says "Padalka, who will be the station's next commander, says the arguments date back to 2003, when Russia started charging other space agencies for the resources used by their astronauts" and also that it was only a *suggestion* that they stick to their own plumbing.

  50. Man Overboard! All hands on the Poop Deck! by geekmux · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They can't use the shuttle toilet that much, since it has to dump waste water overboard periodically. They can't do this while docked.

    OK, while I've somewhat come to terms with the fact that we still find using Naval terms thousands of miles away from any body of water is somehow fitting for that environment, I'm thinking using the term "overboard" is pushing it while sitting in the vacuum of infinite space.

    I'll be holding my breath for the term Poop Deck to turtle it's ugly head.

  51. Sounds like a job for Roger Willco! by Cur8or · · Score: 0

    The age of space-butlers has begun! The future is here people!

    --
    Winkey shortcut mapping for 64bit windows. WinKeyPlus
  52. the plumbers SOP by nimbius · · Score: 2, Funny

    Standard Operating Procedure for Waste Disposal Repair:ISS

    1. designated technician must respond no sooner than 5 hours after initial failure is detected.
    2. display of 2.27-5.323 inches of exposed gluteus maximus is required at all times during any/all repair exercises
    3. no work is to be performed for a duration of longer than 12 minutes, without 30 minute recovery period. consumption of 1 slim-jim or approx. 11 corn nuts during recovery period is recommended
    4. repair costs will be billed to all parties involved and uninvolved in damage and repair. total repair will be factored against the strength of the yen, yuan, and national deficit accordingly to arrive at a final cost of no less than 3/4th the 2011 NASA budget proposal.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  53. Well If... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a Galaxy Class Starship was fine with only one toilet on board, what are these ISS people complaining about?

  54. OOohh by ledow · · Score: 3, Funny

    OOohh, well.... (breaths in through teeth)... it's these space toilets. You just can't get the parts these days. I mean, I can probably have it for you for next month, how's that? Any sooner and it means a trip down to the warehouse to pick up bits. And, you know, my little van is going to struggle getting back to Earth and then back again, especially at this time of night.

    Tell you what I'll do... Tell you what I'll do... I'll ring me mate. He's just doing a job over on the Mars landers. He'll have it for you in no time, no time at all.

    Discount for cash?

  55. Re:second post! by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

    Did they draw straws on who's going to fix it?

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  56. Bruce Willis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bruce Willis would be perfect for the part. I'm sure he'd be great at it... After all, they both have the same plumbing credentials! *ducks*

  57. Issue Problem by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the toilet troubles were 'not going to be an issue' for now.

    No, they are definitely, unavoidably an "issue". Otherwise we wouldn't have a story. It might not be a "problem", though really this is also a problem, but one with a solution. But anything that people can legitimately talk about, that anyone agrees is worth talking about, is an "issue".

    The computer world has turned everyone into a coward afraid of admitting something might be a "problem". Instead, everything's an "issue", which might not be a problem. That's nice: no problem, no blame; just some chitchat and a "resolution". Or it's "unresolved", but that's still not as bad as a problem. Except that's all a bunch of words in denial that there's a problem without a solution. Which makes it hard to solve the problem.

    There is no doubt that losing toilets in orbit, to the point of relying on a backup, across an international divide that was itself a political problem for months, is a "problem". If we can't call that what it is, I don't know if we can take the problems that space exploration brings with it. And that issue is a real problem.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Issue Problem by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Dead on mate!

      "Issues" can be "addressed" without any need for the actual problem to be solved.

      Its a sign of the incessant spin we are subjected to by PR people from both govt and private concerns.

    2. Re:Issue Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The computer world has turned everyone into a coward afraid of admitting something might be a "problem". Instead, everything's an "issue", ....

      Unless you're a corporate executive. If so, it's transmogrified into "a challenge", which is, of course, a challenge to some poor bastard lower on the food chain.

  58. Not for him maybe by Dr_Ken · · Score: 1

    "flight director Brian Smith, adding that the toilet troubles were 'not going to be an issue' for now."

    Well maybe not for him perhaps. This what you have to put up with when every critical piece of equipment is made by the lowest bidder...

    --
    "If you want to know what happens to you when you die, go look at some dead stuff."
  59. like my pappy always said.... by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    A public restroom is the only place where a flush beats a full house.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  60. Bad timing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't you know it. The toliet gives out just when they are about to go on spacewalk #2.

  61. If it's yellow, let it mellow ... by xleeko · · Score: 1

    Sounds like the usual situation whenever you have a bunch of people over at a place off the beaten path. I suspect they are young to pay one heck of a surcharge to get the septic tank guy to come pump it out ...

  62. space plumb'in by sjames · · Score: 1

    ESA astronaut Frank De Winne is the guy tasked with putting his plumbing skills to work on short notice.

    Repairs are delayed while a joint ESA/NASA team determine the correct jumpsuit modification to optimize butt-crack visibility in zero G.

  63. Belgian by arnodf · · Score: 1

    Sure, let the Belgian do the dirty work.

  64. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No comments about the Klingons invading the ISS?

  65. Count the astronauts by Eddy_D · · Score: 1

    One of them will have to go...

    --
    - I stole your sig.
  66. Russians built the living quarters by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Russians built the Zvezda module according to Wiki

  67. Re:second post! by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

    Oh. My. God.
    Hilarious.

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  68. In Soviet Russia... by motherpusbucket · · Score: 1

    the toilet flushes you. I'm truly sorry for that.

    --
    "You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
  69. I can see the headlines... by zorro-z · · Score: 1

    Space station toilet damaged; investigators have nothing to go on.

    --
    -Z
  70. Colbert by mhajicek · · Score: 1

    Hey, the Colbert ain't workin'! It's full of $#!7...

  71. Guess Wolowitz was right... by Heratiki · · Score: 1

    If you remember this has already happened in TV Land... http://the-big-bang-theory.com/episodeguide/episode/222/The+Classified+Materials+Turbulence or Watch it for the first time... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxMhf5Ju8Yk

  72. Golly... by stalky14 · · Score: 1

    It must be embarrassing to be the last guy to use it!

  73. nuke it from orbit by doti · · Score: 1

    it's the only way to be sure

    --
    factor 966971: 966971
  74. Space trip by slapout · · Score: 1

    If you thought a plumber here on earth was expensive, just want to you get this guy's bill for the house call.

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  75. Re:Man Overboard! All hands on the Poop Deck! by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about overboard is so deeply connected to maritime terminology? Any vessel - ship, plane, train, spacecraft - can be boarded. Any replacement word would still come out to a similar term - offboard or outboard perhaps, but doing that is a bit forced and unnecessarily pedantic when everyone already understands overboard just fine.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  76. Time to coin a new term by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    "Main Toilet On ISS Wolowitzed"...

    There, fixed that for ya.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  77. In Soviet Russia... by who's+got+my+nicknam · · Score: 1

    the toilets use YOU!

    --
    "Apparatus dignosco occultus, satis non supernus."
  78. So, to summarize by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1
    The toilet is broken and the engineers who are trying to work out what broke have nothing to go on.

    They should put in a night soil closet where they remove the can once a week and deorbit it over some random totalitarian regime.

    --
    Squirrel!
  79. Obligatory Family guy quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    OHH!! It's EVERYWHERE!!!

  80. Re:Man Overboard! All hands on the Poop Deck! by geekmux · · Score: 1

    What about overboard is so deeply connected to maritime terminology? Any vessel - ship, plane, train, spacecraft - can be boarded. Any replacement word would still come out to a similar term - offboard or outboard perhaps, but doing that is a bit forced and unnecessarily pedantic when everyone already understands overboard just fine.

    Old habits die hard, don't they? You think port and starboard are still fitting to use in space given the origin of those terms, or even referring to a plane or craft outfitted for space travel as a "ship" in the first place?

    I wonder who came up with using nautical terms for spacecraft first, NASA or Hollywood?

    Perhaps I've gone a bit "overboard" here...

    Just because "someone" has always done it this way doesn't make it right. Of course, since Star Trek has riddled this into our minds, there's likely no going back now, no matter how "illogical" it may be.

  81. Re:Man Overboard! All hands on the Poop Deck! by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just because "someone" has always done it this way doesn't make it right.

    Actually, when it comes to language, and when "someone" really is "virtually everyone", then yes, that's EXACTLY what makes it right . . .

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain