Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Space Station Crew Drinks Recycled Urine

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thu May 21, 2009 09:11 AM
from the time-to-boldly-come-back dept.
An anonymous reader writes "After the astronauts on the International Space Station finished up their communications with Space Shuttle Atlantis yesterday, the crew on the Space Station did something that no other astronaut has ever done before — drank recycled urine and sweat. The previous shuttle crew that recently returned to Earth brought back samples of the recycled water to make sure it was safe to drink, and all tests came back fine. So on Wednesday, the crew took their recycled urine and said 'cheers' together and toasted the researches and scientists that made the Urine Recycler possible. After drinking the water, they said the taste was great! They also said the water came with labels on it that said 'drink this when real water is over 200 miles away.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by MeNotU (1362683) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:14AM (#28039183)
    What a (lack of) drag!
  • Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:14AM (#28039189)

    > ...the crew on the Space Station did something that no other astronaut has ever done
    > before -- drank recycled urine and sweat.

    Everyone drinks recycled urine and sweat every day.

    • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Forge (2456) <forge.myrealbox@com> on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:21AM (#28039309) Homepage Journal
      True. We also drink recycled Blood, vomit, pus and other miscellaneous bodily fluids.

      For those who read/watched Dune, the fremins just do in minutes with a machine what nature dose for us in months with sunlight.
      • by Sechr Nibw (1278786) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:28AM (#28039443)
        It's just another step along the Golden Path.
      • by laejoh (648921) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:51AM (#28039809)

        True. We also drink recycled Blood, vomit, pus and other miscellaneous bodily fluids.

        I don't drink that stuff if it's fluoridated. Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face!

        • by bhsurfer (539137) <bhsurfer@gmail . c om> on Thursday May 21 2009, @10:07AM (#28040063)
          I do not avoid the company of astronauts, but I do deny them my essence.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2009, @11:31AM (#28041269)

          Do you know when fluoridation first began? Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Laejoh. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

          FYI, I first became aware of this during the physical act of love.

    • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cyrano de Maniac (60961) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:42AM (#28039685) Homepage

      > Everyone drinks recycled urine and sweat every day.

      While a good point, this may not be quite as true in the case of the astronauts aboard ISS.

      A large portion of the water delivered to ISS comes from the Space Shuttle as it combusts liquid hydrogen to power itself while docked. Depending on the source of the liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel (i.e. Is it generated from electrolysis of water? Condensed directly from the atmosphere? etc), it's possible a significant portion of their water supply has never been urine or sweat before.

      And even if the liquid hydrogen and oxygen was water previously, do water molecules generated from hydrogen combustion really count as "recycled"?

      -- CdM

      • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:37AM (#28039595) Homepage Journal

        Hell, your sewage is merely treated and released back into the environment.

        And by "released back into the environment" what you actually mean is "pumped back into the river". Oh sure, it's "treated", but it's still not REALLY safe to put back in there. So what do we do? We take some water out of the river, make it safe to drink, take a shit in it, then make it kind of safe, then dump it back into the river... so that the next town can pump our shitwater out of the river, and repeat the whole process.

        • by x2A (858210) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:43AM (#28039689)

          Is that what inspired your nick? *lol*

          • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday May 21 2009, @10:02AM (#28039995) Homepage Journal

            Humans actually have one of the weakest immune systems out there, mostly because we've been breeding less and less for hardiness (and worse, in the past ~400 years less for intelligence as well) thanks to the "contributions" of the few bright sparks who come up with things like, say, "the crapper" and make it so that those with downright piss-poor immune systems pass them on to the next generation.

            This needs slapping with a massive [citation needed]. A mere 400 years is not enough time for significant evolutionary changes. Most animals don't foul their own nests either. Ones that have fixed nests just go a distance away from them and ones that don't just move on afterwards. A toilet just allows us to move our waste away from ourselves easily, rather than moving ourselves away from our waste. It's also worth noting that proper sanitation is not available to a large chunk of the human race (who have not, therefore, had this lack of evolutionary pressure away from developing a strong immune system) and that the average lifespan of these people is around half that of people who do.

            • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Thursday May 21 2009, @10:45AM (#28040595) Homepage Journal

              400 years is plenty of time for selective breeding to make a big difference in the gene pool. Selective breeding leads to new breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cattle and more in much less than 400 years.

              Here, in the US, I consider the draft to have been a form of selective breeding. The services excluded people with flat feet, idiots, insane, weak, etc from duty. The strongest, healthiest, smartest, and most stable were sent into battle, and very often killed, while the undesirables stayed home to breed.

              How many people think that this had zero impact on the gene pool?

              Just something to think about.........

              • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)

                by quanticle (843097) on Thursday May 21 2009, @11:38AM (#28041363) Homepage

                For the draft to have had an impact on the gene pool, a vast majority of the people who went to war would either have had to be killed or mutilated in a way that rendered them unable to reproduce. Even in the American Civil War, that was not the case.

                Can you find me even one example of a war that actually affected the reproductive ability of all of the soldiers that fought in it?

                Also, lets not forget that the draft only affects men. Women were excluded, and therefore any gene not on the Y chromosome would have been excluded from being affected.

              • Re:Nonsense. (Score:4, Insightful)

                In humans? no it's not enough time for anybig changes.

                Your example involves selective breeding by an ;outside' source, us.

                But in the natural environments, 400 years just isn't a long time.

                We are not, or have been the decedents of the big brave people that went to battle, we are the decedents of the little shit that stayed in the cave and fucked all the women.

                Your look is way to myopic. I could say all the people smart enough to avoind the draft and stayed home helped the gene pool, but that to is too myopic.
                How many people where drafted? what percentage died before having off spring?
                Add to the fact after WWII the ones that did survive fucked like rabbits. So the physically able went to war, and the survivors came back an had kids. Wouldn't that be an evolutionary improvement?

              • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)

                by timeOday (582209) on Thursday May 21 2009, @11:47AM (#28041507)

                Here, in the US, I consider the draft to have been a form of selective breeding.

                In WWII 0.32% [wikipedia.org] of Americans died, as opposed to 16% in Poland, 13.7% of Soviets. So at the very least, it's much less true in the US than other places.

                World War also provided soldiers an unprecedented opportunity to fling their DNA all over the globe, apparently Uncle Sam didn't make troops take a vow of celibacy.

                Anyways, (tribal) warfare is nothing new, and certainly the number of strong men who die hunting has taken a big nosedive in civilized times.

              • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Interesting)

                by berashith (222128) on Thursday May 21 2009, @10:43AM (#28040571)

                C section is a horrible example. A great many C-sections are done out of convenience. Who can have childbirth interfere with vacation or social requirements?

                My wife had an emergency c-section. It turned out the a fall from a horse many years before had damaged her pelvis to a point that natural birth just didnt work. People like her should not be allowed to pass on the genetic trait of broken bones and physical trauma during teen years!

                • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday May 21 2009, @11:13AM (#28041017) Homepage Journal
                  Not to mention the fact that in a number of cases the operation saves the mother; the child was not at risk. The child would have survived anyway, and would have passed on these genes whether the operation took place or not.
                • Re:Nonsense. (Score:5, Informative)

                  by smellsofbikes (890263) on Thursday May 21 2009, @11:32AM (#28041273) Journal

                  There's an interesting piece on the rise of cesarian section delivery [newyorker.com] written by New Yorker staff writer and active surgeon Atul Gawande, where he claims and shows evidence that c-section replaced forceps delivery because forceps delivery required experience, skill, and physical dexterity, while c-section could be taught by rote, essentially. His underlying thesis is that a mass-production system of doctoring means everyone will get basically the same level of quality of care, rather than having some superstars and some real duds. But in the meantime, it's become so routine, and so highly practiced, that it's rapidly approaching parity with natural childbirth, as regards complications to mother and child, and he thinks at some point it'll be considered the default method for childbirth.

  • Living in a desert (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mc1138 (718275) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:15AM (#28039197) Homepage
    While it may not seem like it the space station is essentially a desert with very little water. This sort of situation really makes it important to loose as little water as possible, and as the astronauts even said when properly treated it tastes great!
    • I would think it would make it important to loose your water into the proper receptacle, actually. It doesn't matter if you loose a lot or loose a little, just as long as you loose it into the right place!
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          "Humidity must be a problem on space stations; people loose water due to respiration"

          There ya go, broke that for ya

  • by COMON$ (806135) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:20AM (#28039293) Journal
    To my Stillsuit...bring on the worms...
  • by Tim4444 (1122173) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:23AM (#28039345)
    it's probably cleaner than the water in the Hudson...
  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:34AM (#28039563)
    Water abstracted from rivers that are fed from treatment plants. That contains water from recycled urine. As does rainwater, when urine evapourates into clouds, which then condense into rainfall.

    Sadly this story has all the self conscious immaturity you'd expect from a 12 year-old, sniggering because it's about pee. Whatever happened to the grown-ups section of Slashdot?

    • but i think you'd have a problem if someone gave you a shit pancake to eat, saying it was ok, it was chemically treated to be nutritious and delicious

      there is meaning in the massive amount of time and the massive natural filtration that goes into the process you describe, and the artificial tiny distance described in the article between what comes out your ass or your dick, and what winds up in your cup and on your plate

      when that distance is reduced via technology, the squeamishness you haughtily assume to

  • I refuse to drink nature's water... Fish fuck in it.

  • by Heartz (562803) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:50AM (#28039799) Homepage
    All about New Water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEWater [wikipedia.org] . Singaporeans have been drinking from Malaysian waste for years...
  • by bobdotorg (598873) on Thursday May 21 2009, @10:05AM (#28040055)

    It's pee. Soylent Yellow is made out of pee. They're making our drink out of pee. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for poo. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!

  • by Alzheimers (467217) on Thursday May 21 2009, @10:13AM (#28040149)

    Put it in a can labeled 'Coors'

    Most people wouldn't be able to taste the difference anyway.

  • by NevermindPhreak (568683) on Thursday May 21 2009, @11:03AM (#28040861)

    "Is it necessary for me to drink my own urine? No, but I do it anyway, because it's sterile and I like the taste."

    • If it's 2 hydrogen bonded to 1 oxygen in the right form it's "real water" Honestly, the Astronauts should be some that would not have the silly reaction to drinking treated water.

      Certainly, but 2 hydrogen bonded to 1 oxygen exists in ripe form in your toilet as well, it's more a question of the additives. And if we did NOT feel an instinctive revulsion towards our own excrement, we would have been wiped out as a species a long time ago after eating our own toxic feces (that rhymes, too). So give those space monkey a break, eh?

    • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:23AM (#28039337) Homepage
      If someone takes a piss in the vat at the Coca-Cola plant, it's still "real Coca-Cola" to a high empirical degree, but I think you'd still appreciate the psychological distinction between that Coca-Cola and the stuff that came out beforehand. Likewise there's a strong innate (unlearned) notion of contamination in humans that makes this "purified urine" rather than "ever so slightly contaminated water" from the astronauts' perspective.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:30AM (#28039489)

        Likewise there's a strong innate (unlearned) notion of contamination in humans

        I'd like to see some evidence for that.

        If you you have little kids, or have spent any time with them, you'd know that they'll happily put anything in their mouths if you don't stop them. The idea of contamination is deliberately taught to children, using words like "icky," "yucky," and "ohmigodwhatisthatinyourhand."

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          I think it's still an open question as to whether disgust is innate, but once a child it, the idea of a disgusting object "contaminating" another is obtained more or less immediately. That's not something we teach kids particularly early, and it's actually a rather abstract notion. I don't have access to sociology journals from here unfortunately and it's been a while since I read much about it, so things could've moved on.
        • If you you have little kids, or have spent any time with them, you'd know that they'll happily put anything in their mouths if you don't stop them. The idea of contamination is deliberately taught to children, using words like "icky," "yucky," and "ohmigodwhatisthatinyourhand."

          Which is ironic when you consider that parents frequently have to overcome previously decided upon levels of contamination to function as a parent. To use myself as an example, during my wife's first pregnancy test, my job was to hold the filled urine cup and dip the test strip in. I didn't even have to touch the urine, but the thought of it being in a cup so close to me made me nauseous.

          Now, after being a parent to two boys, I can eat lunch, stop to change a poop-filled diaper, and then resume eating lunch (after washing my hands of course!). The idea of changing a poop-filled diaper or wiping the bottom of a young child does not make me nauseous at all. Sometimes I'll forget the different parent-nonparent revulsion levels and tell stories that are perfectly ok by parent standards but make non-parents run to the nearest bathroom to hurl. This can be useful if your coworker brought in something that you'd like. "Hey, that's a nice pudding cup... Though it kind of reminds me of my son's diaper yesterday. I opened it up and stuff just spilled out everywhere and... what's that? You don't feel like pudding anymore? I guess I can eat it."

          Just don't ask to hear my mustard story!

      • by Shakrai (717556) on Thursday May 21 2009, @09:57AM (#28039891) Journal

        If someone takes a piss in the vat

        What does Budweiser have to do with the ISS?

      • by MagicM (85041) on Thursday May 21 2009, @10:45AM (#28040599)
        There is no such thing as "real Coca-Cola". Or if there is, the majority of what goes for "Coca-Cola" isn't "real Coca-Cola".

        Coca-Cola is created from concentrate or syrup. This concentrate is shipped to bottlers who add their own sweetners and other additives, which causes local variations. Then it is combined with water from different sources, causing even more variations. Coca-Cola, even in a can or bottle, tastes differently all over the place.

        Then add to that the abomination that is fountain-based Coca-Cola, which is syrup mixed with carbonated tap water. This means that the Coca-Cola from your local city-water-fed McDonald's tastes differently from the Coca-Cola served in the well-water-fed McDonald's just out of town.

        You should count yourself lucky if you've ever had two servings of Coca-Cola that tasted the same.

        </rant type="pet peeve">
        • Wow, you are really mistaken. The tastes of the water going into the mix is heavily controlled for taste. Even to the point where some plants have there won water treatment system on top of a cities water treatment system.
          So like most people on /, while technically true, not practically an issue.
          Save fountain drinks; which really to heavily on the min. wage worker remembering to check the mix.

          "You should count yourself lucky if you've ever had two servings of Coca-Cola that tasted the same."
          That is just stupid. even if what you said was true to a high degree of practicality, most people drink coke from the same location. It's not like every can in an 8 pack came from a different part of the world.