One very strange graphic

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

The country that was really forthcoming about a space toilet was China
regarding the one on Shenzhou.

Funny, since I know a guy who married a Chinese woman and went to the
province of her birth for the wedding. Trench toilets were not uncommon
(outside of the big cities) at the time.

They even put up a webpage giving the dimensions of the urine and feces
collector tubes the Taikonauts would use:
http://wallacewong.com/wp-content/up...ace-toilet.jpg
It also shows that Taikonauts have completly flat buttocks and either very
loose stools or ones that emerge like rabbit droppings as they appear to
have to go down a tube that a marble would have a hard time fitting
through.

I'm not going to touch this one. :-P

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson

Jeff Findley wrote:
http://wallacewong.com/wp-content/up...ace-toilet.jpg
It also shows that Taikonauts have completly flat buttocks and either very
loose stools or ones that emerge like rabbit droppings as they appear to
have to go down a tube that a marble would have a hard time fitting
through.


I'm not going to touch this one. :-P


I actually got out the calipers to check on it; assuming the drawing is
to scale in the relation of the diameter of the feces collector (10cm)
to the suction tube, then the suction tube is under 2cm in diameter.
But Shenzhou 7 has a "luxury toilet":
http://www.cctv.com/english/20080926/100006.shtml
That is because the two previous missions had no toilet at all.
....but with "vinegar-loving Jing" aboard, a toilet was a obvious
necessity. :-)

Pat

Pat

On Apr 14, 5:43*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
When you've got to go, you've got to go. *At least there *is* a toilet. *US
manned spacecraft didn't get a toilet until the space Shuttle. *I'm sure
there was nothing like flying anApollolunar mission without a toilet. *But
still, that's a small price to pay for a trip to themoon, right?

There's some info on the current Soyuz toilet hehttp://depletedcranium..com/?p=625
It's minimalist to put it mildly.
You can see the original design with the folding table hehttp://history.nasa.gov/diagrams/astp/bp227.htm
(I assume the folding table is shown partly cut-away to reveal what's
under it.)
Surprisingly, there's even a little folding bunk in the orbital module
on this, the one used forApollo-Soyuz.

Pat

One bogus topic for mankind, one giant leap of faith for nothing.

Goof Christ almighty on a stick, is this cesspool getting deeper or
what?

~ BG

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:23:56 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

The NASA adhesive bags used on Gemini and Apollo had no suction. Reportedly
there was trouble getting the excrement to fully release and "drop" into the
bag. From what I remember, there was a place in the bag designed to fit
your finger (like a glove for a single digit) to help with this procedure.
Needless to say, this wasn't an easy task in microgravity.

According to one of Chaikin's books, Bill Anders threatened to go on
a steady diet of Lomotil for Apollo 8 :-)

take care,
Scott
who thinks that being an astronaut is a lot less glamorous than the
brochures made it out to be...

Hey! I'm Andrew Liebchen, and this is my very strange graphic.

I've read you comments, and I'd like to thank you for your insights.
I'd like let you know that you can relax, not worry about the future,
and feel good that the Rhode Island School of Design is not getting
into the field of spacecraft design. I am a graduate student studying
architecture.

As a beginning point of my thesis work, I was interested in the
capacity for spacecraft, which are (as you pointed out) almost
entirely the products of engineering and ergonomics, to transform in
their obsolescence into symbols, of capacitors of dreams, mnemonic
devices, and so forth...i.e. things that are beyond engineered
specifications. I was particularly drawn to the Apollo-Soyuz Test
Program: two craft designed for essentially the same mission (going
to the moon) meet in orbit, and look so bizzare together! This moment
is bland in its manned spaceflight achievements, but functions more as
a confirmation of the Soviet-American detante, a spectacular display
of international relations. It is largely remembered today on
commemorative coins, stamps, model kits, etc.

At any rate, my project has moved beyond all this...I'm designing
buildings, not capsules: so rest easy. I moved my blog he
www.andrew-liebchen.com/5dollarglasses though I've passed the stage
where it is a useful device for my project. I am set to complete my
thesis late in May, around which time I will post the results
(architecture, building) or my investigations. If anyone is in the
Providence, RI area mid-May, and would like to come to the final
review for my project (and embarrass me by calling me out on my
spacecraft short-comings), please get into contact with me. I'll give
you specific time and location info.

Thanks again! Its crazy that this thread has 55 (now 56) posts!

-Andrew.

Andrew Liebchen wrote:

I was particularly drawn to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program:
two craft designed for essentially the same mission (going
to the moon) meet in orbit, and look so bizzare together!

Except that neither was designed to go to the moon.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Andrew Liebchen wrote:
Hey! I'm Andrew Liebchen, and this is my very strange graphic.

I've read you comments, and I'd like to thank you for your insights.


Thank God you didn't keep running up that road, because you'd have been
screwed, blued, and tattooed if anyone who was to judge your original
thesis dissertation had looked into it in detail.
It was pure, blind, chance that I ever ran into it, and frankly I think
you might want to thank your lucky stars for pure, blind, chance having
intervened on your behalf right now, at the appropriate moment.
You sir, are apparently "lucky". :-)

Pat

Derek Lyons wrote:
Andrew Liebchen wrote:


I was particularly drawn to the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program:
two craft designed for essentially the same mission (going
to the moon) meet in orbit, and look so bizzare together!


Except that neither was designed to go to the moon.


The Apollo CSM was, and was basicly just a under-fueled stock lunar CSM
in the Skylab/Apollo-Soyuz missions - to let it get into orbit via a
Saturn IB, but the Soyuz was going to need a new service module in its
LOK lunar version: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soy7klok.htm

Pat

wrote:

well dear friend of the parallel realities of the world,

if there are all these complains of andrew liebchen's diagrams out
there, then i wonder who in the engineering world is willing to
contribute to better graphics or should i say accurate graphics of his
research. despite his misunderstandings, i personally think that
without his interests in the subject matter then perhaps fewer in the
'design' world would understand the star trek realities of the space
world.

Further more had he perhaps found better graphics to aid his
comprehension, then may you will have loved it. Please, by all means
attempt to create a poster of similar construct to his reserach, with
accurate details. i'm sure there you will too face the challenges of
fitting everything into a page - Letter Size.


Oh, it's not the graphics that are the problem...the graphics are very
good and professional looking in fact.
(In fact when I first saw it, I assumed it was something NASA had done
sometime in the mid 1960's)
It's what they are illustrating that's all screwed up.
You look at what it's showing in regards to Soviet and American
spacecraft, and the quality of the illustration will mislead you into
thinking that these drawings have some basis in reality - rather like
running into a illustration of the various types of modern reptiles in a
biology textbook that shows some of them with giant bat wings and
breathing fire. ;-)

Pat

...He really needs to give a tutorial on how to do those coin effects.


Thanks for the compliments! Again, the graphic is HIGHLY speculative,
and entirely too reductive. Unfortunately, my positionality is not
explicit in the illustration (and probably unclear elsewhere). The
audience is thankfully not anyone from NASA, a space historians, or
physicists...because I'd definitely get a verbal roasting, or at least
a good laugh. Rather, the graphic is in the an architectural meme of
taking highly reductive concepts from outside the field, adding the
spice of speculation, and running with it. My degree project critics,
panelists, and advisers know well that I am no rocket scientist, nor
are they. They understand this line of thinking, therefore I am not
be disingenuous or stupid.

The internet is problematic, as demonstrated he no framework is
given for the graphic...it would be bad if some kid cut and pasted it
into a report or something, yeah? ;^)

-Andrew Liebchen.