Newsgroups: sci.space.policy,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.history
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: Re: Space Toilet?  Re: Merits of STS
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 16:15:05 GMT

In article <34BA0145.D77@ix.netcom.com>,
Ken Hayashida, MD <khayash@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> operated satisfactorily through the Skylab missions and the crews reported
>> complete satisfaction with the design of this equipment."
>
>I don't have the book in front of me, like you do.  But I recall a
>description of the system discussing the bag arrangement.  Either that
>or one of the astronauts I met told me.

Ken, I fear you're a bit confused on this.  Both the Apollo system and
the Skylab toilet ended up with the waste in a bag.  (This was not a
last-minute change to the MOL/Skylab toilet; it was the way it always
worked.)  The key difference is that the Skylab toilet helped it to get
there.  And that was a *big* difference -- between a clumsy, messy, and
awkward system that was unpleasant to use and not very sanitary (because
it was difficult to get absolutely everything down into the bag), and one
that worked smoothly, cleanly, and without significant problems.

>> How does this square with the curious claim that the toilet had been
>> disabled?  (The crews most certainly were *not* satisfied with the Apollo
>> baggies system.)
>
>Not disabled, I think the other guy was meaning that it was removed
>from the lab.

"Disabled" is what he said... but it was neither disabled nor removed.
It was installed exactly as originally planned, and it worked.

>> [waste recycling]
>> It's not a really big fundamental problem, if you've got plenty of power
>
>Henry, seems like you're nitpicking my comment...
>my point is that it is a challenging engineering project, which
>you seem to agree with when you said:
>
>> Unfortunately,
>> it's not a particularly simple system, and it's a bit power-greedy because
>> it has to run really hot (there are awkward technical problems with doing
>> regenerative heat recovery -- transferring the heat from the outflow to
>> the inflow -- which complicates matters).

Not quite -- read more closely. :-)  What I said is that it's difficult if
you insist on light weight and minimal power consumption.  The problems
with regenerative heat recovery are easily avoided -- just don't do
regenerative heat recovery -- but it does raise the power requirement.  If
you're willing to spend the necessary resources, it's not a hard problem.
There is no mystery about how to do it; it's simply a bit resource-
intensive.

>> I've been told that they have a setup much like the Skylab toilet,
>> with the resulting bagged waste going into the Progress freighters
>> for disposal.  I haven't confirmed this.
>
>And what is that Skylab system Henry?  I don't have my book here...
>can you find it?

Easily.  A fan pulled air through through a hydrophilic bag (permeable to
air but not to liquids), with much of the air coming through well-placed
holes in a form-fitting seat.  The holes were positioned to, basically,
aim the air at the anal area.  This quite effectively carried fecal matter
down into the bag.  The air went through a filter and back into the
workshop.  Once finished and cleaned up, the crewman weighed the bag and
placed it into a heat+vacuum drying system (vented to the waste tank).
After 16-20hr of drying, the bag went into storage for return to Earth and
medical analysis.  Fairchild Hiller developed this for MOL, and it was
used essentially unchanged on Skylab.

The urine system was the subject of endless internal controversy -- mostly
over the best method for preserving urine samples -- but ended up being
straightforward.  Again, airflow made the urine go where it was wanted.
A centrifugal separator sent the urine into a collecting bag and the air
through a filter and back into the cabin.  Each crewman had his own
collecting bag; once a day, a small sample was taken from each bag and
frozen, and the bag with the rest went into the waste tank.

The history of all this, and the controversies over urine sampling and
storage, are documented at length in "Living and Working in Space".
--
Being the last man on the Moon                  |     Henry Spencer
is a very dubious honor. -- Gene Cernan         | henry@zoo.toronto.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Extended duration -dock- for STS/ISS?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:56:53 GMT

In article <5pfq5.3298$EB2.74088@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
Edward Lyons <eddie.lyons@virgin.net> wrote:
>One thing is certain -- no, they would not use the Shuttle's toilet. The
>toilet design of choice for ISS is the Russian model developed for Mir.
>Apparently, it's both more person-friendly, and more reliable, than that
>designed for the Shuttle. This is one vital area of space technology where
>NASA is sadly lagging far behind the Russians. 8-)

Actually, it's yet another vital area of space technology where NASA had a
lead on the Russians but threw it away in the pursuit of newer and better
things.  The Skylab toilet worked well.
--
Microsoft shouldn't be broken up.       |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
It should be shut down.  -- Phil Agre   |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Extended duration -dock- for STS/ISS?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:57:13 GMT

In article <39a9c1f2@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au>,
Justin Wigg <justinwigg@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Actually, it's yet another vital area of space technology where NASA had a
>> lead on the Russians but threw it away in the pursuit of newer and better
>> things.  The Skylab toilet worked well.
>
>...as long as you were male.

The toilet proper (which handled solid waste) was not gender-specific.
Indeed, when JSC built a special long-duration shuttle toilet, for the
longest shuttle flights, they reverted to a Skylab-like design.  (The
standard shuttle toilet stores solid waste internally and has a limited
capacity, which wasn't enough for two-week flights with a big crew.  The
Skylab toilet separated collection and storage.)

What does need to be a bit different for women is urine collection.  But
instead of solving that separately, they decided to redesign the whole
thing...
--
Microsoft shouldn't be broken up.       |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
It should be shut down.  -- Phil Agre   |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)