Article View: sci.space
Article #7544Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
From: Ethan Dicks
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:32
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:32
26 lines
1634 bytes
1634 bytes
In article <schumach.726431013@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle? Because the Skylab toilet was just a large outhouse in orbit. The system was a very low tech, based on the astronauts filling up plastic bags and chucking them into the waste storage area. The Skylab living quarters were built into the area of the Saturn V normally used for the hydrogen tank in the second stage. The oxygen tank area was where the garbage was stowed. Skylab was never intended to be used enough to fill the entire waste disposal area with waste. The toilet on the shuttle was supposed to be a major breakthrough in orbital waste management. The collected human byproducts were supposed to be dessicated in the vacuum of LEO and (devoid of significant volume) discharged into orbit. You think the STS toilet is expensive? Take a look at the head aboard Fred. Last I heard, there were two competing designs; NASA was not expected to endorse either, but rather combine both designs. BTW, does anyone have the text of the toilet instructions on _2001_? I recall that a still was reproduced in the book of the movie. -ethan
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<erd.05oy@kumiss.cmhnet.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!uncle!jcnpc!kumiss!erdReferences:
<1ii451INN71d@phantom.gatech.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!uncle!jcnpc!kumiss!erd From: erd@kumiss.cmhnet.org (Ethan Dicks) Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet Newsgroups: sci.space References: <1ii451INN71d@phantom.gatech.edu> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6] Message-ID: <erd.05oy@kumiss.cmhnet.org> Date: 11 Jan 93 01:32:01 EDT Organization: Not an Organization Lines: 27