SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the really-takes-the-piss?-or-a-load-of-crap? dept.
NASA wants you to design a space toilet for missions to the moon:
NASA issued a call on Thursday asking for ideas for the ultimate space toilet with its Lunar Loo Challenge. The winner of the space toilet challenge could win $35,000 (approximately £28,000, A$51,000) for the top concept.
Although space toilets are already in use (the International Space Station is scheduled to get an upgrade soon), they are designed for microgravity only. Microgravity is when there's weightlessness in space, and NASA's toilet tech has taken care of that problem already. But the new toilets need to be able to work in lunar gravity as well. Lunar gravity is approximately one-sixth of Earth's gravity, so our waste moves a little differently on the moon.
In addition to having the new toilet function in both microgravity and lunar gravity, it has to adhere to a set of strict specifications. It must have a mass of less than 15 kilograms in Earth's gravity, occupy a volume no greater than 0.12 meter cubed, consume less than 70 watts of power, operate with a noise level less than 60 decibels (no louder than an average bathroom fan) and accommodate both female and male users of different shapes and sizes.
[...] "We are looking forward to seeing what the crowdsourcing community can come up with that is out-of-the-box and bring different perspectives for what is needed for a toilet."
[...] "Think about the needs for the toilet and don't worry about it being for a spacecraft," Interbartolo added. "Break it down to the base functions needed in terms of handling male/female urine, fecal, menses, and how you could do it in a compact and low mass way for an easy-to-use system. These concepts are similar for campers, boats, remote and undeveloped locations."
This challenge has two categories: Technical and Junior. Submissions to both categories are due no later than 5 p.m. ET/2 p.m. PT on Aug. 17.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday June 28 2020, @03:29AM (4 children)
I'd say
pretty strongly implies they mean it just how it sounds: 0.12m^3. Which could be arranged as a cube 0.49m on a side, amongst many other options.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Sunday June 28 2020, @06:02PM
Sounds quite feasible. At least, feasible in Earth gravity.
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Monday June 29 2020, @12:19PM (2 children)
0.12m^3 is known as 0.12 cubic meter, not 0.12 meter cubed.
I suppose that it really depends on where you place the parentheses: 0.12 (meter cubed) or (0.12 meter) cubed. The former, as I mentioned, is incorrect terminology (and possibly incorrect English), while the latter makes more sense, which is why I chose to interpret it this way.
Looking at TFA, it would seem that what they want is a unisex version of the implement that the astronaut in the accompanying photo is holding, which, minus the attached hose, seems to be comparable in size to what I understood "0.12 meter cubed" to mean.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday June 29 2020, @02:01PM (1 child)
6m^3 is normally read 6 meters cubed, just as 6x^3 is read as 6 ex cubed. It can *also* be read as 6 cubic meters, but that's the "aren't I clever" pronunciation, akin to calling a group of ravens a murder rather than a flock.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday June 29 2020, @02:19PM
To take it a step further - if you're performing advanced calculations where you get a result of 7m^5 you'd read it seven meters to the fifth, just as you could read the above example a six meters to the third - even cubed/squared terminology is shorthand for common exponents.