home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!digex.com!prb
- From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
- Date: 13 Jan 1993 04:35:20 GMT
- Organization: UDSI
- Lines: 33
- Message-ID: <1j0668INNrai@mirror.digex.com>
- References: <1ii451INN71d@phantom.gatech.edu> <erd.05oy@kumiss.cmhnet.org> <C0pMyM.F8H@zoo.toronto.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
-
- In article <C0pMyM.F8H@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
- >
- >Sorry, not correct. The old shuttle toilet stores the solid wastes until
- >landing, when it is removed and cleaned out. Urine is separated to be
- >dealt with differently (dumped, I think); this is what has been done by
- >all such systems, including the Skylab one.
- >
-
-
- Uh, OH. I think we have a sci.space first here.
- I get to correct Henry. Bill, Dennis watch this real careful, you'll
- probably never see this again in this century.
-
- I watched a NASA fiilm on Select late one night, where they discussed
- the Skylab life support system. Skylab had three seperate water
- recovery systems. identical in function and part.
- Water was recovered from exhalation, urine and the shower/handbasin.
- each system used a wick evaporator to distill h2o and then passed the
- vapor through a carbon filter to remove odor and contaminants.
- For psychological reasons recycled urine was used solely forhand washing
- although it met quality requirements for drinking.
- The film showed the astronauts conducting daily qualtiy tests and
- doing maintenance on the system.
-
- I imagine in the event of a system failure the contingency plan was
- to valve all liquid sources back to one recycler for mission
- preservation.
-
- I think the shuttle dumps urine because the fuel cells produce lots
- of water and the weight of the recycler is not cost effective.
-
- pat
-
-