 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Space - Station Forum » BBC Article on the ISS toilet... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| IC2... |
 Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
This BBC article is full of facts, but are all of them correct?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8158350.stm
In particular is it true that "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."? Does it really cost so much? I mean, the unit
itself cost so much?
I also don't remember that last year "a Russian cosmonaut complained
that he was no longer allowed to use the US toilet because of billing
and cost issues." but that is probably my fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jorge R. Frank... |
| Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
IC2 wrote:
[quote:d9a77d5682]This BBC article is full of facts, but are all of them correct?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8158350.stm
In particular is it true that "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."? Does it really cost so much? I mean, the unit
itself cost so much?
[/quote:d9a77d5682]
Yes.
[quote:d9a77d5682]I also don't remember that last year "a Russian cosmonaut complained
that he was no longer allowed to use the US toilet because of billing
and cost issues." but that is probably my fault.
[/quote:d9a77d5682]
It is true. The US started charging in retaliation for Russia charging
for US astronauts to use the Russian toilet. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I think the issue of who uses what toilet is seen as a huge joke up on
station. No matter what the bean counters say, when you gotta go...
As for cost, well, both toilets seem to use the same bits, and goodness
knows how much the items cost. From listening to the comms yesterday, it
sounds to me like the Russians wanted to do as they often do on their
toilet, a quick clean out and a restart, but the americans, not wanting to
merely delay the next failure, decided it would be best to replace the
items just in case. There did seem to be some jokular banter on station
about the various attitudes on the ground, though of course it was not said
in so many words, I gather that the politics of the ground based folk never
ceases to amaze the astronauts, who tolerate their masters ways in much the
same way that we tolerate mosquitos.
grin.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"IC2" <miospam at (no spam) mclink.it> wrote in message
news:4a63b039$0$6829$5fc30a8 at (no spam) news.tiscali.it...
[quote:6c4f10a9ae]This BBC article is full of facts, but are all of them correct?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8158350.stm
In particular is it true that "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."? Does it really cost so much? I mean, the unit itself
cost so much?
I also don't remember that last year "a Russian cosmonaut complained that
he was no longer allowed to use the US toilet because of billing and cost
issues." but that is probably my fault.[/quote:6c4f10a9ae] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Doe... |
| Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Brian Gaff wrote:
[quote:71747da76b]I think the issue of who uses what toilet is seen as a huge joke up on
station. No matter what the bean counters say, when you gotta go...
[/quote:71747da76b]
I think it may also have to do with the original ISS contracts whereby
Russia agreed to support the US segment for ECLSS and Soyuz for a
certain number of years and/or until a certain assembly stage.
Assuming the USA urine recycler works reliably enough to be in
production (as opposed to being in testing/debugging), wouldn't the USA
invite the russians to bring their urine to the USA segment for processing ?
And since the Russians have the only working trash can (Progress) where
non-urine output from the toilets can be disposed, I would think that
both would work in a symbiotic relationship for the toilets, especially
since both toilets share a lot of commonality for parts, servicing.
On the other hand, if a toilet has to be maintained after each X uses,
then the scheduling for maintenance may be thrown off if crews start to
use the other toilet because that would bring its maintenance task
forwards. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brian Gaff... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I had to laugh tyesterday when they found the russian and American spares in
the same bag, and when the part number was read out, the ground said theat
the part number they needed was the american one, not the Russian one which
meant nothing to them, even though the two parts were in fact identical.
There did seem to be a certain amount aof suppressed impatience on station
to my ears.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - briang1 at (no spam) blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"John Doe" <jdoe at (no spam) doe.org> wrote in message
news:001de2c3$0$29955$c3e8da3 at (no spam) news.astraweb.com...
[quote:5dce9edc35]Brian Gaff wrote:
I think the issue of who uses what toilet is seen as a huge joke up on
station. No matter what the bean counters say, when you gotta go...
I think it may also have to do with the original ISS contracts whereby
Russia agreed to support the US segment for ECLSS and Soyuz for a
certain number of years and/or until a certain assembly stage.
Assuming the USA urine recycler works reliably enough to be in
production (as opposed to being in testing/debugging), wouldn't the USA
invite the russians to bring their urine to the USA segment for processing
?
And since the Russians have the only working trash can (Progress) where
non-urine output from the toilets can be disposed, I would think that
both would work in a symbiotic relationship for the toilets, especially
since both toilets share a lot of commonality for parts, servicing.
On the other hand, if a toilet has to be maintained after each X uses,
then the scheduling for maintenance may be thrown off if crews start to
use the other toilet because that would bring its maintenance task
forwards.[/quote:5dce9edc35] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Doe... |
| Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jeff Findley wrote:
[quote:df02a1c897]Agreed. But if one part has a US number and the other a Russian number,
that implies ownership. One could imagine a scenario where that same part
breaks again on the US toilet, only to have the Russians tell NASA, "Sorry,
but you already used your spare part. You'll have to buy a new one and
we'll ship it up on the next Progress/Shuttle flight."
[/quote:df02a1c897]
And this is why the ISS project is a good learning experience. It isn't
just how to design an electrical/data interface with other partners, but
also how to properly manage its operation.
The managers will eventually realise the foolisheness of their current
"it's mine" policy and end up working with each other to share toilets
and spare parts. There may be some accounting behind the scenes if the
americans buy a part from the russians and end up lending it to the
russians in space to fix their toilet. Having separate spare part
inventories for the same device is rather silly, especially when you
consider the limited cargo upmass they will have once shuttle is retired. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:03 pm
|
|