Here is Broyan’s summary of the astronauts’ feedback on the Gemini-Apollo fecal bag system, as presented in that same paper. Clearly not all crew members embraced the scenario with the jollity of Young, Stafford, and Cernan.
The fecal bag system was marginally functional and was described as very “distasteful” by the crew. The bag was considered difficult to position. Defecation was difficult to perform without the crew soiling themselves, clothing, and the cabin. The bags provided no odor control in the small capsule and the odor was prominent. Due to the difficulty of use, up to 45 minutes per defecation was required by each crew member,* causing fecal odors to be present for substantial portions of the crew’s day. Dislike of the fecal bags was so great that some crew continued to use…medication to minimize defecation during the mission.
The Gemini-Apollo urine bags were less odious, but not very much so. Especially when they burst, as Jim Lovell’s did during Gemini VII. Lovell, quoted in astronaut Gene Cernan’s memoir, described the mission as “like spending two weeks in a latrine.” Hamilton Sundstrand suit and toilet engineer Tom Chase neatly summed up the sentiment among engineers and NASA brass at the end of Apollo: “We have to do better.”
NASA’s first zero-gravity toilet was a hands-on load-and-remove-your-own-bag model designed to facilitate specimen collection* during the medical fact-gathering missions of Skylab. It was built into the wall. In the years that followed, to accommodate the psychological and vestibular needs of the crews, NASA engineers and designers began building rooms and labs with a more consistent Earth-gravity-based orientation: tables on “floors” and lighting on “ceilings.”
Space Shuttle toilets have always been mounted on the floor, but you would not call them normal. The original shuttle toilet bowl featured a set of 1,200 rpm Waring blender blades positioned a brief 6 inches below the sitter’s anatomy. The macerator would pulp the feces and tissue—meaning, if all went well, the paper, not the scrotal, variety—and fling it to the sides of a holding tank. “It was kind of pasted there like papier-mâché,” says Rethke. Problems developed when the material in the holding tank was exposed to the cold, dry vacuum of space. (Freeze-drying was a way to sterilize it.) Now it didn’t stick together as well. The papier had lost its mâché. When the next astronaut switched on the macerator, tiny bits of fecal wasp nest that lined the walls of the tank would break off and get batted around by the blades, turning to dust that escaped into the cabin of the spacecraft.
Here’s how bad it got, as reported in NASA Contractor Report 3943: “Reportedly, astronauts aboard the current STS mission (41-F) have resorted to use of Apollo-style adhesive bags. On previous missions, clouds of fecal dust generated by the zero-gravity toilet have caused some astronauts to stop eating in order that they reduce their needs to use the facility.” The same report elsewhere pointed out that fecal dust was not merely disgusting, but could result in “an unhealthy growth of E. coli bacteria in the mouth,” as used to happen on board submarines plagued by sewage vapor “blowback.”
The macerator has long since disappeared, but escapees still occasionally plague the crews. The culprit these days is a phenomenon you will read about in space agency waste collection papers and, one hopes, nowhere else: “fecal popcorning.” Broyan gamely elaborates: “Because everything else is frozen, the material that’s going in, depending on how hard the stool is, has a tendency to bounce off the walls. You’ve seen the old air-pop popcorn machines? There’s an air flow in there and it’s kind of circulating. That material’s just floating around in the air stream, and it tends to come back up the tube.” Howdy, doody.
Fecal popcorning is the reason Space Shuttle toilets were equipped with rearview mirrors. “We ask them to take a look back there as they shut that slider,” Broyan says, “in case there’s a piece that’s on its way up the tube.” Fecal popcorning is the gateway phenomenon to fecal decapitation. You do not want fecal decapitation taking place aboard your ship. If a crew member closes the sliding gate at the top of the toilet transport tube just as a popcorning piece is crowning, the slider gate may decapitate it on its way shut. This is a heinous scenario for two reasons. Any material smeared on the top side of the slider is sharing the cabin along with the crew, and, quoting Broyan, “they’re going to smell it.” Also, the smearage on the underside will freeze-dry the slider gate shut. Now the toilet’s out of order, and everyone has to use the shuttle’s contingency fecal waste collection system: the Apollo bag. If you’re the boob responsible, you are in for some blowback from your crewmates.
THERE IS NO WAY to anticipate a phenomenon like fecal popcorning. Some things you can’t know until you get into orbit. That’s why toilets, like everything else that flies in space, get hauled up on a parabolic flight for testing. In this case, the testing poses unique challenges.
Along these lines. Late yesterday afternoon, I got the idea that I wanted to try out the Space Shuttle training toilet. I was already scheduled to meet Broyan and Weinstein and my escort from the public affairs office at noon the next day. Nine A.M., absolute latest I can do, said my colon. I called Gayle Frere, my public affairs escort, to try to explain my dilemma and reschedule for first thing in the morning. I caught her at her grandson’s graduation, where she had to yell over the noise. I pictured her husband turning away from the festivities to ask what was going on. I imagined Gayle shouting into his ear. It’s that writer. She wants to crap in the shuttle toilet! I apologized and quickly hung up.
My meandering point being that to schedule an evacuation even within a matter of hours can be awkward. Imagine trying to do so on cue within a twenty-second window of weightlessness. Retired NASA food scientist Charles Bourland was once on board a parabolic flight with a group of engineers testing a zero-gravity-toilet prototype. The toilet had a partial screen set up around it, but Bourland could see the man. “It was number two,” he told me. “He was all primed to do his thing but couldn’t deliver at the appropriate time. There was a lot of joking and yelled words of encouragement,” though not from Bourland, who was fighting motion sickness while testing and sampling seventy-two new Skylab foods, including creamed peas and beef hash, and did not need any additional inducement to throw up.
Some of the testing done in weightlessness has been of a more exploratory nature. “As queer as it sounds, if you want to manage what comes out the back end, you gotta understand what it’s doing,” said Hamilton Sundstrand engineer Tom Chase, whom I ran into on a simulated moon expedition in the Arctic. Chase was wearing his spacesuit hat that week rather than his toilet hat, but he was game to chat shit. “For instance…” Chase began drawing on a pad of Hamilton Sundstrand graph paper balanced on his knee. “Without gravity to pull things straight, they tend to curl as they’re coming out.”* This was documented by NASA and Hamilton Sundstrand toilet engineers that day in a series of 16-mm films. Thanks to this work, aerospace waste collection systems engineers are not only aware of the curl, they know its range of curvature and most likely direction (backward). They know that the softer ones, up to a point, curl more. Why would they need to know all this? Because the curl can gum up the top of the transfer tube and compromise your air flow.
The films featured both male and female volunteers, the latter consisting of, said Chase, “some gals in the nurses’ corps.” The footage was classified as limited distribution but, according to Hamilton Sundstrand folklore, regularly traveled beyond its prescribed limits. Pretty much “anybody with a buddy in waste management design” saw them, said one of Chase’s colleagues. “They were very, very popular, those films.”
Eventually someone who saw the shit also saw the potential for it to hit the fan. “You can imagine the reaction,” said Chase—What if someone does a FOIA on these! (FOIA stands for Freedom of Information Act, whereby journalists and the public can request copies of unclassified government documents.) The films were destroyed. Chase waxed melancholy about their demise. He is part of the team that had been working on toilets for lunar missions. “It??
?s unfortunate because we were going through this phase here where it would be highly useful to us.”
Don Rethke said that the far trickier engineering problems—and thus the bulk of the footage—involved urination. For one thing, liquid tends to adhere to the body in space. “When gravity goes away,” says Rethke, “surface tension is the next physical force.” Even on a human hair, surface tension makes liquids cling. Rethke said that people with longer hair can, in zero gravity, hold two to three liters of water in their hair. NASA needed to know the extent to which pubic hair was compromising female “velocity potential.” (Scott Weinstein helpfully describes this as how easy it is to “write your name in the snow.”)
Chase began sketching again. “You don’t just urinate and get a perfect cylindrical outflow, if you’ve ever kind of observed what’s going on. With gals, there’s more in the way of getting a pure stream.” I.e., labia and pubic hair. And a weakened stream tends to break apart and form floating blobs. Then Chase told me something quite stunning. He said he’d known women who, while out hiking or backpacking, are “able to take their pants down to their ankles and kind of lean back against a tree and just by moving things around a little bit, getting some room there, be able to fire away and direct it.” There was a silence while I contemplated this new and life-changing information. Chase went on. “I’m telling you, women can pee harder than men. But you got to be willing to manipulate the anatomy. There’s just some ladies who are more comfortable exploring what is possible than other ladies.”
No kind of lady, regardless of comfort level, wants an audience of male toilet engineers and their cronies. Eventually the nurses got wind of what was happening and refused to participate in any more filming. Hamilton Sundstrand was forced to get creative. “One of the guys had a really hairy stomach,” said Chase, and here he leaned back in his chair and stuck out his belly. “If he went like this…” He placed a palm on either side of his stomach and pushed in toward his belly button, such that it was possible to imagine a vertical fold appearing in the flesh beneath his shirt. “…he got about the right look. So in zero G they could spray him with ersatz [urine] solution and film it and they could understand about the droplet formation.” Chase released his gut. “That’s good thinkin’.”
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS to test a zero-gravity toilet. “At NASA Ames Research Center, we have undertaken the task of developing human fecal simulants,” writes Kanapathipillai “Wiggy” Wignarajah in a 2006 technical paper. Wignarajah is surely the most sophisticated thinker in this realm, but he is not the first. Others before him—in, for instance, the commercial diaper industry—have employed brownie mix, peanut butter, pumpkin pie filling, and mashed potatoes. Wignarajah pooh-poohs these efforts, as none of these substances comes close to approximating, as he puts it, “how human feces will behave”—i.e., its water-holding properties and its rheology. Rheology, in food science, refers to the study of consistency. Consistency is determined by things like viscosity and elasticity. Food technologists have special equipment designed specifically to measure these things, and if they are smart, they will not lend them out to anyone at NASA Ames.
A simulant made from refried beans gets respectable scores from Wignarajah. Though the protein content is too high and thus the water-holding properties are off, the beans are said to look and behave so much like human stool that future visits to the tacqueria have, in my mind anyway, been forevermore altered. The bean-based simulant designers hail from “Umpqua,” and by this I assume Wignarajah means Umpqua Community College and not the Umpqua Bank or the Umpqua Indian Tribe.
The NASA Ames simulant blew the Umpqua dump out of the water. The recipe features eight ingredients, including miso, peanut oil, psyllium, cellulose, and “dried coarsely ground vegetable matter.” It may not taste as good as the Umpqua simulant but is in every other respect a vastly superior product. The main ingredient is the fecal bacteria E. coli, accounting for—as it does in real human feces—30 percent of the weight of the material. I don’t know whether the Ames toilet division has colonies of fecal bacteria on site—other than the ones inside the gut of every living employee—or whether they are procured by mail order. Wignarajah did not answer my email.
The one feature lacking in the Ames simulant was fecal odor. To be sure future toilets’ odor control measures are living up to expectations, Wignarajah plans to add malodorous compounds to the Ames simulant. Which leads one to wonder, Why bother with a simulant? If they need something that smells like the real thing, why not use the real thing? They do, but only at the very end. “Final testing can be completed with limited experiments on real human feces.” So powerful is the taboo against contact with human excrement that NASA researchers have, in days past, run simulations with monkey or dog feces playing the role.
ON THE FRONT of Broyan’s polo shirt is a patch from International Space Station Assembly Mission ULF2. The design incorporates various facets of the ISS toilet, arranged inside an oval toilet seat. A slogan reads, Proud to Be of Service.
Broyan has good reason to be proud, as do Weinstein, Chase, Rethke, Wignarajah, and everyone they work with. A successful zero-gravity toilet is a subtle finessing of engineering, materials science, physiology, psychology, and etiquette. As with Wiggy’s simulants, if just one element is missing, things don’t come out right. And few other technical failures have the power to so reliably and drastically compromise a crew’s well-being.
It’s possible the elimination issue has had even deeper ramifications. I interviewed a retired Air Force colonel named Dan Fulgham, who had been involved in the selection of the first Mercury astronauts. Colonel Fulgham told me the excretion conundrum was the main reason female pilots weren’t considered.* “We knew women were as good as men. We had female pilots all during World War II. They could fly fighters. They could fly bombers.” But they couldn’t use a condom-ended in-suit urine collection device. “The collection of body waste was a real issue logistically.” (The adult diaper was apparently not on anyone’s radar screen.)† “We were under the gun to get this thing underway,” Fulgham recalled. “So we said, ‘Let’s limit the amount of concerns we have.’”
If you read The Mercury 13: The Untold Story of 13 American Women and the Dream of Space Flight, you’ll see that the women pilots had other things working against them. Like Vice President Lyndon Johnson, who, rather than signing a letter to the director of NASA urging him to let female fighter pilots apply to become astronauts, wrote “Let’s stop this now!” across the bottom.
As mission lengths grew long enough to require a fecal strategy and crews grew to two-person, the female problem persisted. “The issue of privacy had been a big factor in NASA’s reluctance to include women as astronauts,” writes former NASA psychiatrist Patricia Santy of the Apollo-Gemini era. In Choosing the Right Stuff, Santy cites the development of the private space bathroom—“probably more than any other reason”—as the motivating factor behind NASA’s decision to allow female astronauts.
Were toilets a reason to exclude women, or an excuse? You would think that the passage of federal prohibitions on gender-based hiring discrimination would have been a more powerful impetus than a toilet door. The irony is that female astronauts are the more practical choice for spaceflight. On average, they weigh less, breathe less, and need to drink and eat less than men. Which means less oxygen, water, and food have to be launched.
Rather than keeping launch costs down by flying smaller, more compact humans, NASA chose to fly smaller, more compact pot roast and sandwiches and cake. Rarely has anything so cute been so loathed.
DISCOMFORT FOOD
When Veterinarians Make Dinner, and Other Tales of Woe from Aerospace Test Kitchens
On March 23, 1965, a corned beef sandwich from Wolfie’s delicatessen was launched into space. This particular branch of Wolfie’s was in Cocoa Beach, Florida, not far from the Kennedy Space Center. Astronaut Wally Schirra ordered it to-go and drove it back to Kennedy, where he convinced astronaut John Young to sm
uggle it on board the Gemini III capsule and surprise his crewmate Gus Grissom. Two hours into the five-hour-long flight, that is what Young did. The moment did not go entirely as envisioned.
GRISSOM: Where did that come from?
YOUNG: I brought it with me. Let’s see how it tastes. Smells, doesn’t it?
GRISSOM: Yes, [and] it’s breaking up. I’m going to stick it in my pocket.
YOUNG: It was a thought, anyway.
GRISSOM: Yep.
The “corned beef sandwich incident” became ammunition for NASA detractors at congressional budget hearings later that year. In the Congressional Record for July 12, 1965, one Senator Morse, pushing for a 50 percent reduction to the proposed $5 billion NASA budget, said Young had “made a mockery” of the entire Gemini science program, with its carefully measured intakes and outputs. Someone else asked NASA administrator James Webb how he could expect to control a multibillion-dollar budget if he could not control two astronauts. Young was given a formal reprimand.
The contraband Wolfie’s sandwich violated no less than sixteen of the formal manufacturing requirements for “Beef Sandwiches, Dehydrated (Bite-sized).” The requirements cover six pages and are set forth in the ominous phrasing of biblical commandments. (“There shall be no…damp or soggy areas.” “The coating shall not chip or flake.”) Moreover, the Wolfie’s sandwich exhibited Defect #102 (“foreign odor, e.g., rancid”) and Defect #153 (“breaks when handled”), among dozens of others but hopefully excluding Defect #151, “visible bone, shell or hard tendonous material.”