NASA CONTRACTOR REPORT 177422 I 

CONTROLLED ECOLOGICAL LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS (CELSS) 

PHYSIOCHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS EVALUATION 

T, SLAVIN 

F, LIENING 

M, OLESON 

R,L, OLSON 

BOE I NG AEROSPACE COMPANY 

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 

PREPARED FOR 

AMES RESEARCH CENTER 

UNDER CONTRACT NAS2-11806 

I - NASA 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Ames Research Center 

Moffett Field, California 94035 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Boeing CELSS study team wishes to thank the following persons for their 

Mr. P. Budininkas Chamberlin National 

assistance: 

s Dr. C. Johnson NASA Ames Research Center 

Dr. R. MacElroy NASA Ames Research Center 

Dr. M. Modell Modar, Inc. 

Dr. F. Schubert Life Systems, Inc. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

FIGURES 

TABLES 

GLOSSARY 

UNITS OF MEASURE 

FOREWORD 

ABSTRACT 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW 

1.2 BACKGROUND 

1.3 STUDY OBJECTIVES 

1.4 STUDY APPROACH 

1.5 GUIDELINES AND ASSUMPTIONS 

1.6 INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

2.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM COMPARISON 

2.1 WASTE PROCESSING 

2.2 SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION 

2.2.1 INCINERATION 

2.2.2 WET OXIDATION 

2.2.3 SUPERCRITICAL WATER OXIDATION 

2.2.4 VAPOR COMPRESSION DISTILLATION 

2.2.5 THERMOELECTRIC INTEGRATED MEMBRANE 

EVAPORATION 

2.2.6 VAPOR PHASE CATALYTIC AMMONIA REMOVAL 

2.3 SUBSYSTEM PARAMETRIC COMPARISON 

2.3.1 WEIGHT AND VOLUME 

2.3.2 LOGISTICS 

2.3.3 POWER 

2.3.4 HEAT REJECTION 

2.3.5 LAUNCH COST ANALYSIS 

2.3.6 SUMMARY 

2.4 IMPACT ON OVERALL ECLSS 

2.4.1 COMBUSTION-BASED MASS BALANCE 

i 

ii 

V 

vi 

viii 

ix 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

13 

13 

16 

16 

20 

22 

2a 

30 

36 

42 

43 

47 

50 

52 

52 

58 

62 

62 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

2.4.2 VCD-BASED MASS BALANCE 

2.4.3 TIMES-BASED MASS BALANCE 

2.4.4 VPCAR-BASED MASS BALANCE 

2.5 ECLSS PARAMETRIC COMPARISON 

2.5.1 WEIGHT AND VOLUME 

2.5.2 LOGISTICS 

2.5.3 

2.5.4 LAUNCH COST ANALYSIS 

2.5.5 SUMMARY 

POWER CONSUMPTION AND HEAT REJECTION 

3.0 CONCLUSIONS 

4.0 REFERENCES 

5.0 THE BETS PROGRAM AND PROGRAM RESULTS 

5.1 THE BETS PROGRAM 

5.2 COMPARISON RESULTS 

6.0 APPENDIX A: CELSS DOCUMENTS PUBLISHED AS NASA REPORTS 

64 

64 

68 

70 

70 

75 

77 

79 

83 

87 

91 

93 

93 

99 

131 

'4 

rl 
FIGURES 

Figure Page 

2.2.1.1-1 

2.2.2.1-1 

2.2.3-1-1 

2.2.4.1-1 

2.2.5-1-1 

2.2.6-1-1 

2.2.6.1-2 

2.3-1 

2.3.1-1 

2.3.2-1 

2.3.3-1 

2.3.4-1 

2.3.5-1 

2.4.1-1 

2.4.2-1 

2.4.3-1 

2.4.4-1 

2.5.1-1 

2.5.2-1 

2.5.3-1 

2.5.4-1 

5.1-1 

Incineration Waste Disposal System - Space Station Application 

Wet Oxidation Subsystem - Space Station Application 

Supercritical Water Oxidation - Space Station Application 

General VCD Subsystem Schematic 

TIMES I1 Schematic 

Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia Removal System - 

Space Station Application 

Auxiliary Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia 

Removal System - Space Station Application 

Waste Management System Technology Level 

Waste Management System Weight and Volume 

Comparison 

Waste Management System Logistics Comparison 

Waste Management System Power Comparison 

Waste Management System Heat Rejection 

Waste Management System Launch Costs 

ECLSS Daily Mass Balance Using Combustion 

Based Waste Management 

ECLSS Daily Mass Balance Vapor Compression 

Distillation Impact 

ECLSS Daily Mass Balance Thermoelectric 

Integrated Membrane Evaporation Impact 

ECLSS Daily Mass Balance Vapor Phase 

Catalytic Ammonia Removal Impact 

ECLSS Weight and Volume Comparison 

ECLSS Configuration Logistics 

ECLSS Power Consumption and Heat Rejection 

ECLSS Configuration Launch Costs 

BETS Program Flow Chart 

17 

21 

25 

29 

32 

37 

38 

44 

46 

49 

51 

53 

57 

63 

66 

67 

69 

74 

76 

78 

82 

94 

i 
Table 

TABLES 

Page 

1.6-1 

1.6-2 

1.6-3 

1.6-4 

2.1-1 

2.1.2 

2.2.1.2-1 

2.2.2.2-1 

2.2.3.2-1 

2.2.4.2-1 

2.2.5.2-1 

2.2.6.2-1 

2.2.6.2-2 

2.3-1 

2.3-2 

2.3.5-1 

2.3.5-2 

2.3.6-1 

2.3.6-2 

2.4.1-1 

2.5-1 

2.5-2 

2.5-3 

2.5.4-1 

2.5.5-1 

2.5.5-2 

5.1-1 

5.1-2 

5.1.1-1 

5.1.1-2 

5.2-1 

5.2-2 

Waste Management System Ranking Summary 

Waste Management System Parametric Evaluation 

ECLSS Daily Materials Balance (lbs/day) 

ECLSS Configuration Ranking Summary 

Average Loads for ECLSS 

Partial Logistics for Open Loop ECLSS 

Dry Incineration Equipment List 

Wet Oxidation Equipment List 

Supercritical Water Oxidation Equipment List 

Vapor Compression Distillation Equipment List 

TIMES I1 Equipment List 

VPCAR Equipment List 

Aux. VPCAR Equipment List 

NASA - Crew Systems Technology Levels 

Waste Management System Parametric Summary 

IOC Space Station Power and Thermal Systems Launch Costs 

Waste Management Subsystem Launch Costs 

Waste Management System Ranking Summary 

Waste Management System Parametric Evaluation 

Waste Solids Combustion Analysis 

ECLSS with Waste Water Processing by Combustion 

ECLSS with Waste Water Processing by Phase-change 

ECLSS Configuration Parametric Summary 

ECLSS Configuration Launch Costs 

ECLSS Configuration Ranking Summary 

ECLSS Configuration Parametric Evaluation 

BETS Average Loads for ECLSS 

BETS Specific Mission Data 

ECLSS with Waste Water Processing by Combustion 

ECLSS with Waste Water Processing by Phase-change 

IncineratiodAux. VPCAR Subsystem Summary 

IncineratiodAux. VPCAR 

ECLSS Logistics Summary 

5 

7 

9 

10 

14 

13 

19 

23 

26 

31 

34 

40 

41 

42 

45 

55 

56 

5a 

60 

65 

71 

72 

73 

ai 

a4 

83 

95 

96 

97 d 

98 

101 

102 

b 

ii 
TABLES 

Table 

5.2-3 

5.2-4 

5.2-5 

5.2-6 

5.2-7 

5.2-8 

5.2-9 

5-2-10 

5.2-11 

5.2-12 

5.2-13 

5.2-14 

5.2-15 

5.2-16 

5.2-17 

5.2-18 

5.2-19 

IncIneratiodAux. VPCAR 

ECLSS Electrical Power Summary 

IncineratiodAux. VPCAR 

ECLSS Heat Rejection Summary 

IncineratiodAux. VPCAR 

ECLSS Mass Balance Summary 

Wet OxidatiodAux. VPCAR 

Subsystem Summary 

Wet Oxidation Aux. VPCAR 

ECLSS Logistics Summary 

Wet OxidatiodAux. VPCAR 

ECLSS Electrical Power Summary 

Wet OxidatiodAux. VPCAR 

ECLSS Heat Rejection Summary 

Wet OxidatiodAux. VPCAR 

ECLSS Mass Balance Summary 

Supercritical Water Oxidation 

Subsystem Summary 

Supercritical Water Oxidation 

ECLSS Logistics Summary 

Supercritical Water Oxidation 

ECLSS Electrical Power Summary 

Supercritical Water Oxidation 

ECLSS Heat Rejection Summary 

Supercritical Water Oxidation 

ECLSS Mass Balance Summary 

Vapor Compression Distillation 

Subsystem Summary 

Vapor Compression Distillation 

ECLSS Logistics Summary 

Vapor Compression Distillation 

ECLSS Electrical Power Summary 

Vapor Compression Distillation 

ECLSS Heat Rejection Summary 

Page 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

iii 
TABLES 

Table 

5.2-20 

5.2-21 

5.2-22 

5.2-23 

5.2-24 

5.2-25 

5.2-26 

5.2-27 

5.2-28 

5.2-29 

5.2-30 

Vapor Compression Distillation 

ECLSS Mass Balance Summary 

Thermoelectric Integrated Membrane Evap. 

Subsystem Summary 

Thermoelectric Integrated Membrane Evap. 

ECLSS Logistics Summary 

Thermoelectric Integrated Membrane Evap. 

ECLSS Electrical Power Summary 

Thermoelectric Integrated Membrane Evap. 

ECLSS Heat Rejection Summary 

Thermoelectric Integrated Membrane Evap. 

ECLSS Mass Balance Summary 

Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia Removal 

Subsystem Summary 

Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia Removal 

ECLSS Logistics Summary 

Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia Removal 

ECLSS Electrical Power Summary 

Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia Removal 

ECLSS Heat Rejection Summary 

Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia Removal 

ECLSS Mass Balance Summary 

Page 

120 

121 

.. 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

iv 
GLOSSARY 

* 

1 

ARC 

AC 

BETS 

CELSS 

CER 

C 

CH4 

co2 

DDThE 

DC 

dia 

ECS 

ECLSS 

EDC 

EM 

EPA 

EVA 

PO 

GARD, Inc. 

H2 

H20 

HID 

HSC 

HX 

HYG 

I2 

IOC 

INCIN 

IVA 

LEO 

LSRP 

LSS 

LM 

LMSC 

max 

Ames Research Center 

alternating current 

Boeing Engineering Trade Study (computer program) 

controlled ecological life support system 

cost estimating relationships 

carbon 

methane 

carbon dioxide 

design development, test, and evaluation 

direct current 

diameter 

environmental control system 

environmental control and life support system 

electrochemical depolarized cell (C02 removal) 

engineering model 

Environmental Protection Agency 

extravehicular activity 

fiber optic 

General American Research Division, Inc. 

diatomic hydrogen 

water 

high intensity discharge lamp 

Hamilton Standard Company 

heat exchanger 

hygiene water 

diatomic iodine 

initial operational capability 

dry incineration (system) 

intravehicular activity 

low Earth orbit 

life sciences research facility 

life support system 

logistics module 

Lockheed Missiles and Space Company 

maximum 

V 
GLOSSARY 

min 

N2 

N2H4 

NASA 

"3 

02 

odtc 

ORU 

PGU 

POT 

RO 

scwo 

so2 

ss 

STS 

TIMES 

TOC 

VAX 

VCD 

VMS 

VPCAR 

WETOX 

wt 

btu 

btuh 

cc 

deg C 

deg P 

ft/min 

ft 

it3 

mini mum 

diatomic nitrogen 

hydrazine 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

ammonia 

diatomic oxygen 

operations and checkout 

orbital replacement unit 

plant growth unit 

potable water 

reverse osmosis (waste water process) 

supercrit ical water oxidat ion (system) 

sulfur dioxide 

Space Station 

Space Transportation System (Shuttle) 

thermoelectric integrated membrane evaporation system 

total organic carbon 

DEC minicomputer 

vapor compression distillation (system) 

Virtual Memory System (VAX operating system software) 

vapor phase catalytic ammonia removal (system) 

wet oxidation (system) 

weight 

U"S OF MEASURE 

British thermal unit (unit of heat transfer) 

btu per hour 

cubic centimeters 

degrees centigrade 

degrees Fahrenheit 

cubic feet 

feet per minute 

foot 

vi 
UNITS OF MEASURE 

d? 

V 

ftcndl 

1G 

8 

hr 

hz 

kbps 

kw 

kwh 

KS 

lb 

m3 

mbh 

mmHg 

m m/m2/sec 

PH 

PPm 

psia 

kg 

PSig 

% 

< 

> 

footcandle 

Earth normal gravity 

grams 

hour 

hertz (unit of frequency in cycles/sec) 

kilobits per second 

kilograms 

kilowatts 

kilowatt hour 

thousands of dollars 

pounds (unit of mass) 

cubic meters 

thousands of btu per hour mm millimeters 

millimeters of mercury (unit of pressure) 

micromoles per square meter per second 

indication of acidity/alkalinity 

parts per million 

pounds per square inch absolute (unit of pressure) 

pounds per square inch gauge (unit of pressure) 

percent 

less than 

greater than 

vi i 
FOREWORD 

The Conceptual Design Option Study-Controlled Ecological Life Support System 

(CELSS) Program Planning Support (contract NASI- 11806) was modified by change order 

2 dated April 30, 1985, to include a survey of six physiochemical waste management 

Dr. R. L. MacElroy. The study manager is Dr. Catherine Johnson. 

systems with potential CELSS applications. The contracting officer's representative is V 

This study was conducted by the Boeing Aerospace Company, Seattle, Washington. 

viii 
ABSTRACT 

This report compares parametric data for the following six waste management 

subsystems, as considered for use on the Space Station: (1) dry incineration, (2) wet 

oxidation, (3) supercritical water oxidation, (4) vapor compression distillation, 

(5) thermoelectric integrated membrane evaporation system, and (6) vapor phase 

catalytic ammonia removal. The parameters selected for comparison are on-orbit 

weight and volume, resupply and return to Earth logistics, power consumption, and heat 

rejection. 

Trades studies are performed on subsystem parameters derived from the most 

recent literature. The Boeing Engineering Trade Study, (BETS), an environmental control 

and life support system (ECLSS) trade study computer program developed by Boeing 

Aerospace Company, is used to properly size the subsystems under study. The six waste 

treatment subsystems modeled in this program are sized to process the wastes for a 

90-day Space Station mission with a crew of eight persons and an emergency supply 

period of 28 days. The resulting subsystem parameters are compared not only on an 

individual subsystem level but also as part of an integrated ECLSS. 

Two factors affect the results of this trade study. One is the level of subsystem 

development. The four basic parameters studied in this report tend to be optimized 

during the later stages of equipment development, Therefore, subsystems in their later 

stages of development tend to exhibit lower parametric values than their earlier models. 

The other factor is the functional design of the subsystem. Systems designed to process 

a wider variety of wastes and to convert these wastes to more usable byproducts in 

general have higher process rates and therefore tend to be larger, weigh more, consume 

more power and reject more heat than waste treatment systems with lower process 

rates. These parametric liabilities are only offset when the parameters are weighed 

against the process rates and the overall ECLSS mass balance, 

ix 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW 

Waste management subsystems are a key element in Controlled Ecological Life 

Support Systems (CELSS) operations. These subsystems recover the minerals needed for 

plant growth from waste products. These waste products are normally highly complex 

organics that are not directly assimilable by plants as nutrients. Converting these 

organics may be accomplished through biological or physiochemical processes. This 

study deals only with the physiochemical subsystems currently under consideration for 

space station waste management system. These subsystems are: 

a. Incineration (INCIN). 

b. Wet oxidation (WETOX). 

c. Supercritical water oxidation (SCWO). 

d. Vapor compression distillation (VCD). 

e. 

f. 

Thermoelectric integrated membrane evaporation system (TIMES). 

Vapor-phase catalytic ammonia removal (VPCAR). 

Subsystems are sized, for comparison purposes, to support an eight-person crew 

waste load. These subsystems are to operate in a Space Station microgravity environment. They are configured to optimize weight, volume, and power demands. The designs 

are processed through the Boeing Engineering Trade Study (BETS) computer program to 

develop parametric data used in comparison analyses. 

While this study deals solely with a parametric comparison of these subsystems, 

there are two important factors, not directly considered here, that should be kept in 

mind. One is the differences in the development stages among the six subsystems. As 

the development of a subsystem progresses past the demonstration of the design concept, 

design attention becomes more focused on optimizing power consumption, heat rejection, 

and weight and volume. Accordingly, it may be misleading to compare the parameters of 

subsystems in their early stages of design and testing, such as INCIN, WETOX, SCWO and 

VPCAR, with parameters of more developed subsystems, such as VCD and TIMES. The 

other factor is the functional design of the subsystem. INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO are 

designed to reduce both solid and liquid wastes while recovering reusable water and 

gases. VCD and TIMES are designed to process waste liquids only while recovering useful 

water. VPCAR is being developed to clean up the the water from the VCD unit but it 

could be used to process waste liquids and vapors as well. 

1 
1.2 BACKGROUND 

Waste management was identified as enabling technology early in the course of the 

CELSS program planning study. NASA evaluation resulted in amendment of the contract 

(NAS2-11806) to examine physioche m ical waste management subsystems. 

1.3 STUDY OBJECITVES 

This study has four objectives: 

Identify physiochemical waste water management subsystem designs suitable for use 

on Space Station-based CELSS. 

Develop equipment listings and flow diagrams. 

Develop mass flows using computerized modeling techniques. 

Compare subsystems using trade-off analysis. 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

1.4 STUDY APPROACH 

Seven sequential steps are used to meet the study objectives: (1) An extensive 

literature search for current waste water management subsystems was conducted 

(pertinent literature is listed in section 4.0). (2) Waste water subsystem schematics were 

extracted from the literature. These subsystem schematics were then modified as 

required for space flight. (3) An equipment listing was developed for each schematic. 

(4) A mass balance was calculated to ensure equipment and system flows were 

compatible with waste water load. (5) BETS parametric modeling algorithms were 

derived for each subsystem. Each subsystem was then processed through the BETS 

modeling program to generate parametric values for an eight-person crew. (6) The 

subsystems were compared based on their parametric values. (7) Overall ECLSS 

parametric comparisons were conducted. This process is presented in this attachment 

to the CELSS final report. 

1.5 GU'IDBUNES AND ASSUMPTIONS 

The same assumptions used in the Conceptual Design Option Study-Controlled 

Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS) Program Planning Study are applicable to this 

attachment. These assumptions and guidelines are in section 1.5 of the final report. 

2 
. 

1.6 INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Six waste management systems with potential CELSS application are surveyed: (1) 

dry incineration (INCIN), (2) wet oxidation (WETOX), (3) supercritical water oxidation 

(SCWO), (4) vapor compression distillation (VCD), (5) thermoelectric integrated membrane evaporation system (TIMES), and 6) vapor phase catalytic ammonia removal 

(VPCAR). 

Waste management systems are key elements in CELSS. They must recover and 

recycle inorganic nutrients and minerals from waste products to sustain plant growth. 

Waste management is also a key element for Space Station without the plant growth 

option. Solid and liquid wastes normally generated by the metabolic and hygienic 

activities of the Space Station crew must be processed, reduced, and stored for return to 

Earth. Without processing and reducing these wastes, the logistics requirements for the 

projected 9O-day resupply of potable and hygiene water would total 57% of the Shuttle 

payload capacity. Wash and waste waters being returned to Earth would exceed the 

Shuttle landing payload capacity by 6197 lb. 

All of the subsystems discussed in this report serve to close the (ECLSS) loop in 

differing degrees, INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO are designed to process solid and liquid 

wastes and thus reusable water, solid residues, and gases. VCD, TIMES, and VPCAR are 

designed to process liquid wastes only, producing reusable water. VPCAR may be able to 

process some dissolved solids while recovering additional water and gases. 

INCIN was developed in 1972 by General American Research Division (GARD, Inc.) 

to incinerate human feces, urine, and nonhuman wastes. A four-man system for 

spacecraft use was built and tested by GARD, Inc.. The advantage of this subsystem is 

its production of sterile products. The disadvantages are its very dirty effluent requiring 

post treatment by catalytic oxidation, the requirement to preconcentrate the waste 

water, and the requirement to manually load the incinerator. The original schematic is 

modified in this report (fig. 2.2.1.1-1) to include a concentrator. For this study, auxiliary 

VPCAR parametric penalties are added to the process. 

WETOX was developed in 1972 by the Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. (LMSC) to 

process human feces, urine, and miscellaneous spacecraft wastes at elevated temperature and pressure, recovering useful gases and water for recycling. A four-man 

prototype was designed and tested in the laboratory by LSMC. The advantages of this 

system include the ability to handle solid wastes as well as nondistilled liquid wastes, 

automatic operation, and its production of a sterile effluent, Disadvantages include 

high-temperature (550 deg P) and high-pressure (2200 psia) operation and the production 

of a very dirty effluent requiring post-treatment by catalytic oxidation. The original 

3 
schematic (fig. 2.2.2.1-1) is not modified, but the addition of an auxiliary VPCAR is 

considered to be a requirement in this report. 

SCWO is currently under development by Modar, Inc. This process involves the rapid 

oxidation of aqueous wastes containing (by weight) up to 30% solids above the critical 

temperature (705 deg P) and pressure (3208 psia) of water. There is good reason to 

believe that this process will be able to handle the 1% to 6% by weight of solids that are 

expected to be encountered in the Space Station waste water. High power and heat 

rejection rates are expected to be a concern with this system. A laboratory experiment 

has been set up and tested by Modar, Inc. to prove the basic concept. Data from this 

experiment are used in this report to derive component parameters for an eight-person 

Space Station subsystem. The advantages of this include ability to process solids, high 

oxidation efficiency resulting in relatively clean effluent, and a very short reaction time 

of 1 minute or less. Disadvantages include a very high operating temperature (1240 deg 

P) and pressure (3674 psia) resulting in designs with relatively high weight, volume, 

power and heat rejection penalties. A conceptual schematic (fig. 2.2.3.1-1) of a Space 

Station system was derived from data provided by Model, Inc.. 

VCD is being developed by Life Systems, Inc., is a phase-change process designed to 

recover potable water from urine and wash water by boiling off water at subatmospheric 

pressure in a compressor/evaporator/condenser. A second-generation, three-man system 

specifically designed for spacecraft use, was built and tested by Life Systems, Inc. 

Advantages of this process include low power consumption, high heat recovery, and high 

water recovery rate. Disadvantages include the inability to process solids and failure of 

the recovered water to meet NASA potable-water standards. No changes to the Life 

Systems, Inc. system schematic (fig. 2.2.4.1-1) are made in this report. 

TIMES is being developed by Hamilton Standard. This also is a phase change process 

using a polysulfane hollow fiber membrane to evaporate water at subatmospheric 

pressure. A three-person prototype, specifically designed for spacecraft use, was built 

and tested by Hamilton Standard using urine concentrations of up to 12% (by weight). 

Advantages of this system include low level of complexity, low power consumption, high 

heat recovery, and high water recovery rate. Disadvantages include inability to process 

solids and low water quality. No changes to the Hamilton Standard system schematic 

(fig. 2.2.5.1-1) are made in this report. 

Vapor phase catalytic ammonia removal is under development by GARD, Inc.. It is a 

hybrid process using a hollow fiber membrane to recover water as well as catalytic 

oxidizer reactors for reducing volatiles to useful water vapor and gases. This process 

was proven on a laboratory bench model by GARD, Inc. using untreated urine vapor as 

input. Advantages include ability to break down water vapor volatiles into reusable 

4 
llwater and gases, high heat recovery, and the quality of recovered water. Disadvantages 

include inability to process suspended solids and high reactor temperatures (250 deg C 

and 450 deg C) resulting in volume, power, and heat rejection penalties. No changes in 

the proposed system schematic (fig. 2.2.6.1-1) are made in this report. However, this 

schematic is used to derive a schematic (fig. 2.2.6.1-2) and equipment parameters for an 

auxiliary VPCAR unit for addition to the INCIN and WETOX subsystems clean up their 

effluents. 

The validity of subsystem trade analysis largely depends on the level of subsystem 

technology development. The more mature systems are optimized for power, weight, 

volume, and heat rejection. They therefore tend to come out better in parametric trade 

analyses when compared with less mature systems. Thus the parametric performance of 

the six subsystems would tend to reflect the maturity of development as listed below 

from most to least mature: 

1. VCD. 

2. TIMES. 

3. INCIN. 

4. WETOX. 

5. VPCAR. 

6. SCWO. 

Considering these systems as independent entities that have no influence on the 

other ECLSS subsystems, they are ranked by the parameters evaluated in this report 

from best to least as shown in table 1.6-2 below. 

TABLE 1.6-1 

WASTE WAGEMEN" SYSTEM RANKING SUMMARY 

Ranking Weight 

1 TIMES 

2 VCD 

3 scwo 

4 VPCAR 

5 INCIN 

6 WETOX 

Volume 

TIMES 

VCD 

scwo 

VPCAR 

WETOX 

INCIN 

Heat 

Logistics Power Rejection 

VPCAR VCD VCD 

scwo VPCAR VPCAR 

INCIN TIMES TIMES 

WETOX scwo INCIN 

VCD INCIN scwo 

TIMES WETOX WETOX 

Launch 

costs 

VPCAR 

scwo 

INCIN 

WETOX 

VCD 

TIMES 

5 
It is apparent that the phase-change processes (VCD and TIMES) have the best 

weight, volume, power, and heat rejection characteristics but have the worst logistics 

requirements. The better characteristics are partially a result of the mature level of 

subsystem development. The fact that these processes were designed to recover water 

from only liquid wastes also contributes to the lower weight, volume, power, and heat 

rejection but results in higher logistics requirements. 

The combustion processes (INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO) have the opposite 

characteristics. They exhibit relatively high weight, volume, power, and heat rejection 

but lower logistics requirements. The higher weight, volume, power and heat rejection 

rates are partially due to the lower maturity level of these subsystems and are also due 

to the increased mass processing rate, higher recovery rate and the nature of the 

processes that use high temperatures and pressures for combustion. The more favorable 

logistics requirements are due to the higher recovery rates of usable materials, requiring 

less resupply and return to Earth. 

The VPCAR system is a hybrid using both phase-change and oxidation processes. Its 

parametric performance is therefore more mixed than for the other systems in this 

study. VPCAR displays the best logistics, good power consumption and heat rejection, 

but only fair weight and volume characteristics. Overall its performance is very good 

considering its relatively low technology level (figure 2.3-1). 

It is difficult to determine a "best" subsystem from the above comparisons. 

Selecting a best subsystem depends on which parameters are considered to be the most 

important. The relative importance of the parameters depends on the mission 

requirements. For example, a short-mission space capsule may place maximum emphasis 

on weight, volume, power, and heat rejection. A long-mission lunar-base or Mars 

expedition may place maximum emphasis on reducing or eliminating logistics. The Space 

Station may place equal emphasis on all of the parameters with upper limits set for each 

one. Table 1.6-2 is a parametric evaluation of the subsystem where all parameters are 

considered to be equally important. 

6 
TABLE 1.6-2 

WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PARAMETRIC EVALUATION 

Waste Management Subsystem 

Parameter INCIN WETOX SmO VCD TIMES VPCAR 

Weight 5 6 3 2 1 4 

Volume 6 5 3 2 1 4 

Logistics 3 4 2 5 6 1 

Power 5 6 4 1 3 2 

Heat Rejection 4 6 - 5 - 1 3 2 

Total 23 27 17 11 14 13 

The subsystems are given nominal values based on their relative ranking in each 

parametric category. Therefore, the TIMES subsystem weight parameter is given a value 

of 1 because it exhibited the best weight characteristics (sec. 2.3.1). The WETOX 

subsystem power parameter, however, is given a value of 6 because it exhibited the 

highest power consumption (sec. 2.3.3). Lower ranking values indicate lower parametric 

penalties and therefore better relative parametric standing. When the parametric values 

for each subsystem are summed, the following parametric ranking results: 

1. VCD. 

2. VPCAR. 

3. TIMES. 

4. scwo. 

5. INCIN. 

6. WETOX. 

When all parameters are considered equally, the phase-change processes come out 

on top and VCD is the best of these. Subsystem maturity and functional design have a 

lot to do with this result. 

The NASA Space Station program places primary emphasis on costs. At this time 

there is not enough information on all of the subsystems to determine and compare them 

for life cycle costs. But, as demonstrated (table 2.3.5-l), there is enough parametric 

information derived from this report to determine and compare subsystem launch costs 

over a projected subsystem equipment life of 10 years. The launch costs in the table 

have subsystem power and heat rejection support required from the Space Station 

7 
factored into them. The results reveal that if launch costs were the single most 

important selection criteria, then the subsystems would have to be ranked from most to 

least desirable as follows: 

1. VPCAR. 

2. scwo. 

3. INCIN. 

4. WETOX. 

5. VCD. 

6. TIMES. 

This is the same relative ranking as for the logistics comparison in section 2.3.2. 

This indicates that, when launch costs are considered over the life of the equipment, 

logistics becomes the single most important parameter overriding weight, volume, 

power, and heat rejection combined. The combustion-based subsystems have the best 

logistics characteristics, and, of these VPCAR and SCWO appear to be the best 

performers. 

However, these waste treatment subsystems do not function independently. They 

are dependent up other ECLSS devices for waste and processing inputs as well as for 

additional processing of effluents. This affects the balance of materials required and 

produced by these subsystems and the balance of materials processed and stored by the 

rest of the ECLSS. Table 1.6-3 is a summary of the ECLSS daily materials balance for 

an eight-person Space Station mission for each of the six waste processes under study. 

8 
Subsystem 

INCIN 

WETOX 

scwo 

VCD (2) 

TIMES (3) 

VPCAR 

TABLE 1.6-3 

ECLSS DAILY MATERIALS BALANCE (LBDAY) (1) 

Inputs Effluents 

Water Solids & Water Brine Ash co% & 

60.6 4.1 5.2 62.9 0 1.2 5.1 0.4 0.2 

60.6 4.1 5.2 62.9 0 1.2 5.1 0.4 0.2 

60.6 4.1 5.2 62.9 0 1.2 5.1 0.4 0.2 

60.5 2.4 0 58.0 5.0 0 0 0 0 

60.5 2.4 0 57.6 6.1 0 0 0 0 

60.6 2.4 0 61.7 0 0.8 2.8 0.3 0.2 

Notes: 

(1) Balanced to within 0.1 lb. 

(2) 0.4 lb water vapor vented. 

(3) 2.3 lb water vapor vented. 

The above summary indicates that the combustion processes recover more water and 

require less storage for waste byproducts than the phase-change processes. This is done 

at the expense of requiring oxygen (02) from the Space Station supply system and 

requiring larger carbon dioxide (C02) collection and reduction by the combustion 

processes could be used for plant growth, eliminating the need to increase the size of the 

Space Station C02 reduction subsystem. 

The ECLSS material balance suggests that in order to evaluate and compare the 

subsystems they should be considered as part of an integrated ECLSS. Using a common 

ECLSS baseline configuration (table 2.5-1) for each of the six subsystems results in the 

"ECLSS Configuration Ranking Summary" shown below for each of the four parameters. 

A Shuttle commode and trash compactor are added to the phase-change configurations 

(fig. 2.5-2) as penalties for storing solid wastes. 

The parametric rankings obtained in section 2.5 for the six waste management 

subsystem ECLSS configurations provide the basis for the conclusions in this report. This 

is because the configuration rankings include consideration of individual subsystem 

parameters along with overall ECLSS material balances and ECLSS subsystem interdependence. Therefore, they provide a more complete picture of the end parametric 

affects of each of the six waste management subsystems, Table 1.6-4 below is a 

summary of Section 2.5. 

9 
TABLE 1.6-4 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION WKWG SUMMARY 

Ranking 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Heat Launch 

Weight Volume LoRistics Power Rejection Costs 

TIMES SCWO scwo VCD VCD INCIN 

VCD TIMES INCIN TIMES TIMES scwo 

SCWO VCD WETOX VPCAR VPCAR WETOX 

VPCAR WETOX VPCAR SCWO INCIN VPCAR 

INCIN VPCAR VCD INCIN scwo VCD 

WETOX INCIN TIMES WETOX WETOX TIMES 

Several conclusions may be drawn from this summary. First, it highlights the 

optimum ECLSS configuration for each parameter. If on-orbit weight is considered to be 

the most important characteristic, then the TIMES configuration has the lowest weight. 

If logistics weight is considered to be the most important factor, then the SCWO 

configuration has the lowest logistics requirements. 

Second, general trends related to process type appear. The summary reveals that 

the phase-change processes (VCD and TIMES) exhibit the best weight, volume (with the 

exception of SCWO), power, and heat rejection characteristics, but the worst logistics. 

The combustion processes (INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO) exhibit very good logistics, but 

the worst weight, volume, power, and heat rejection. The VPCAR results are more 

mixed since this subsystem is part phase change, with hollow fiber membrane evaporator, 

and part combustion (oxidation), with its NH3 and N20 catalytic oxidation reactors. 

These trends are due in part to the function of the processes and in part to their level of 

maturity. The phase-change processes handle only liquid wastes and can only recover 

94% to 97% of the water in these wastes. Any solids in the wastes (and an equal amount 

of water by weight) are rejected as brine and stored for return to Earth. This handling of 

a limited amount of wastes keeps the on-orbit weight and volume, power consumption, 

and heat rejection rates relatively low, but the brine storage requirements keeps the 

logistics high. The combustion processes are designed to handle both solid and liquid 

wastes. They not only recover 100% of the water in the waste but also produce 

additional water in the oxidation reactions. The higher waste processing rate and the 

required higher operating temperatures and pressures (except for INCIN) tend to increase 

the subsystem weight, volume, power consumption, and heat rejection rates. Increased 

10 
dependency on the other ECLSS subsystems for providing 02 and for processing Nq, COq 

and SO2 tend to increase these same parameters for the supporting subsystems as well. 

However, the higher processing and recovery rates also tend to significantly reduce the 

ECLSS logistics requirements for water and N2. 

Power consumption and heat rejection rate have identical configuration rankings. This is. because 

all of the power that is required by a subsystem is assumed to be converted to heat. If a 

fan motor draws 1 kw of electrical power, it is assumed that 1 kw of heat is passed to 

the cabin atmosphere by the motor. The exception to this assumption is the combustion 

processes. These generate additional heat, above their power consumption rate, in the 

exothermic oxidation reactions (fig. 2.4.1-1). Another relationship exists between 

configuration logistics and 10-year launch costs. When launch costs consider not only 

getting the equipment into orbit but also resupplying it every 90 days for an anticipated 

10-year life, then logistics becomes the single most important cost factor. One 

relationship that is not evident in this summary but is evident in the consideration of 

individual subsystems (sec. 2.3, fig. 2.3.1-1) is the direct relationship between on-orbit 

weight and volume. This is not seen in the ECLSS configuration comparisons because the 

weight and volume values are too close to each other. The values are so close (within 4% 

to 9%) that they can be considered within the limits of estimating error and therefore 

not significant. 

It is not obvious from table 2.5.5-1 which waste management subsystem is the best 

overall parametric performer. That judgment depends largely on which parameters are 

considered to be the most important. The relative importance of each parameter must 

be determined from the individual space-mission requirements. A short mission in a 

space capsule may emphasize low weight, volume, power, and heat rejection. A lunar 

base or Mars expedition may place higher priority on low logistics. A Space Station in 

Earth orbit may place equal importance on all. If all parameters are considered equally 

important, then the subsystems can be ranked as follows from best to least: 

1. VCD. 

2. TIMES. 

3. scwo. 

4. VPCAR. 

5. INCIN. 

6. WETOX. 

Third, relationships between the various parameters become visible. 

11 
Because the phase-change processes rank highest in five out of the four separate 

parameters they have the best overall performance. VCD ranks the highest of these. The 

combustion processes rank the lowest, SCWO is the best of these. 

However, NASA is placing primary importance on costs for the Space Station 

program. Although insufficient data have been found for calculating complete subsystem 

life cycle costs for this report, enough subsystem parametric data have been generated 

by BETS to estimate subsystem launch costs over a projected 10-year equipment life. 

When these costs, which are adjusted for the use of the IOC Space Station power and 

thermal systems, are compared for each ECLSS configuration, the following subsystem 

ranking from least to most expensive launch cost results: 

1. INCIN. 

2. scwo. 

3. WETOX. 

4. VPCAR. 

5. VCD. 

6. TIMES. 

This ranking is basically the same as for the logistics parameter, indicating that 

when launch costs are evaluated over the life of the equipment, logistics becomes the 

single most important factor. Logistics becomes so important that it overrides the 

weit+-’ volume, power consumption, and heat rejection parameters combined. The 

combustion processes have the lowest logistics requirements. The cost figures are so 

close among the three combustion processes (within 5%) that no clear best performer is 

indicated. 

12 
2.0 WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM COMPARISON 

. 

2.1 WASTE PROCESSING 

Normal operation of the Space Station will result in the generation of numerous 

contaminants and wastes. For the Station to continue operation and to provide a 

habitable environment for the crew, all of the contaminants and wastes must be 

collected and processed. Gaseous contaminants are expected to be generated primarily 

by crew metabolism and by material outgassing. These gases will be processed primarily 

by the Station C02 removal and reduction subsystems and by the trace contaminant 

removal subsystem. Liquid wastes are expected from crew metabolism and crew hygiene 

activities. In an open-loop water system, these wastes would simply be collected and 

stored for later return to Earth. In this case, storage requirements would be quite high. 

Solid wastes occur in the form of fecal solids and trash solids. Like the liquid wastes, if 

the solid wastes are not treated or reduced they must be collected and stored for return 

to Earth. A listing of generally accepted crew metabolic and hygiene requirements and 

outputs is given in table 2.1-1. 

The purpose of a waste management subsystem is to process, reduce, and store 

waste products while converting some of them to reusable form. Simple storage of 

wastes is the most reliable technique but suffers the greatest logistics penalties in terms 

of weight and volume. For example, if a 90-day Space Station resupply period is 

assumed, using the crew loads listed in table 2.1-1 results in the Space Shuttle resupply 

and return to Earth weights as given in table 2.1-2. 

TABLE 2.1-2 

PARTIAL LOGIsIlCS FOR OPEN-LOOP ECLSS 

Eight-Person Crew and 90-Day Resupply Period 

Gases (lb) Water (Ib) 

0% COa Potable Hygiene Wash Waste Total 

Resupply 1,333 0 4,867 30,672 0 0 36,872 

Return 0 1,584 0 0 30,007 6,606 38,197 

Notes: 

1. This table represents only a partial logistics picture. Actual Space Station 

open-loop resupply and return logistics would balance each other. 

2. Wash and waste water figures in this table contain solids. 

13 
TABLE 2.1-1 

AVERAGE LOADS FOR ECLSS 

Par ame t e r Units Av e r age Peak * 

Metabolic oxygen lb/person-day 1.84 3.65 

Metabolic carbon dioxide lb/person-day 2 -20 4 -41 

Drinking water lb/person-day 2.86 3.39 

Food preparation water lb/person-day 3.90 4.64 

Hand wash water lb/person-day 7 .OO 

Shower water lb/pe r son-day 5 .OO 

Clothes wash water lb/person-day 27 .SO 

Dish wash water lb/( 8) crew-day 16 -00 

Metabolic produced water lb/person-day 0 -78 

Perspiration/respiration H20 lb/person-day 4 -02 5.82 

Urine (3.3) plus flush (1.1) lb/person-day 4 -40 

Fecal water lb/person-day 0.20 

Food solids lb/person-day 1.36 

Food preparation latent H20 lb/person-day 0 -06 

Food water lb/pe rson-day 1.10 

Trash solids 

Trash water 

Urine solids 

Fecal solids 

Sweat solids 

EVA drinking water 

EVA waste water 

EVA oxygen 

EVA carbon dioxide 

lb/person-day 0.13 

lb/person-day 0 -30 

lb/person-day 0 -13 

lb/person-day 0.07 

lb/person-day 0 -04 

lb/8-hr EVA 0.75 

lb/8-hr EVA 2 .oo 

lb/8-hr EVA 1.32 

lb/8-hr EVA 1.57 

Sensible metabolic heat btu/person-day 7010 .OO 7900 

Hygiene latent water lb/pe r son-day 0.94 

Laund ry latent water lb/person-day 0 -13 

Hygiene water solids % of H20 usage 0.13 

Waste wash water solids % of H20 usage 0.44 

Airlock volume ft3 150 .OO 

Cabin air leakage lb/day-module 0 .SO 

Charcoal (odor cont roll lb/person-day 0.13 

Clothing weight Ib/person-day 2 -50 

Commode ullage volume ft3/dump 0 .oo 

* Short term, high work load capacity. 

14 
Since the existing Space Transportation System is rated for a landing (return to 

Earth) payload of only 32,000 lb, table 2.1-2 shows that a completely open-loop 

environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) for an eight-person crew is not 

supportable at this time. A partial or a completely closed-loop system must therefore be 

considered. Generally, the more closed an integrated Station ECLSS becomes, the more 

reduced the logistics requirements become. The major drawback to the closed system is 

that the subsystems are very interdependent resulting in a lower overall system 

reliability than for an open-loop system. Subsystem and ECLSS reliabilities are not 

addressed further in this report due to the lack of sufficient subsystem reliability data. 

There are some subsystems whose function is to reduce the volume of the wastes 

while not necessarily converting these wastes to useful byproducts. Such subsystems are, 

for example, the present commode aboard the Space Shuttle and a proposed trash 

compactor for the Space Station. Although these devices may serve necessary functions 

aboard the Space Station, they remain open-loop devices. 

The six waste management subsystems considered in this study all serve to close the 

ECLSS loop, The Life Systems, Inc. vapor compression distillation (VCD) unit and the 

Hamilton Standard Inc. TIMES thermoelectric integrated membrane evaporation system 

(TIMES) unit are two of the most developed subsystems now under consideration by 

NASA for use aboard spacecraft. Both of these units are designed to recover water from 

waste and wash water sources through a phase change process. They both provide 

distilled water by boiling off water vapor at subatmospheric pressures. The solids left 

behind in these processes are concentrated into brines that then must be stored for later 

return to Earth. 

The four other subsystems in this study: dry incineration (INCIN), wet oxidation 

(WETOX), supercritical water oxidation (SCWO), and vapor phase catalytic ammonia 

removal (VPCAR) are much less developed than the VCD or TIMES units. INCIN and 

WETOX units were last developed in the early 1970s, research continues to be done on 

them. SCWO and VPCAR are the two most recently developed technologies that have 

grown out of the earlier work on INCIN and WETOX, Both of these later subsystems are 

still in the laboratory development stage. INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO are designed to 

recover not only the water in the incoming waste and wash waters but also water formed 

by the combustion of solids contained in these inputs. Unlike VCD and TIMES, these 

subsystems can handle solid wastes in a liquid slurry with optimum solids concentrations 

at 10% to 30% weight. 

VPCAR is somewhat of a hybrid between the 

processes. It is designed to recover waste and wash 

the oxidation of volatiles, such as ammonia, carried 

phase-change and the combustion 

water and any water formed from 

over from an evaporation process. 

15 
Suspended solids must be filtered out before entering this process but dissolved solids 

may be carried over with the water vapor and oxidized. The unusable byproducts from 

all of these combustion-oxidation processes are expected to be ash and some sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) gas. These byproducts must be stored for later return to Earth. 

A more detailed discussion on each of the above subsystems follows in section 2.2. 

2.2 SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION 

This section details each subsystem by functional description, schematic and 

equipment and parameter list. This information was drawn from the most recent reports 

and journal articles available. Revisions have been added for operating in a zero-G 

environment (Le., watedgas separation devices) and for additional equipment deemed 

necessary for the subsystem to function as part of an integrated ECLSS (e+, service 

valves, control valves, accumulators, and heat exchangers). 

2.2.1 Incineration 

G. A. Remus, and J. Shapira in 1972. 

A system was developed to incinerate human feces, urine, distillate residue (50% 

solids by weight) and nonhuman wastes at 600 deg C. It is judged for the purposes of this 

report that this system reached a NASA technology level of 4 (table 2.3-1). 

This subsystem is based upon ASME publication 72-ENAv-2 written by L. J. Labak, 

2.2.1.1 Subsystem Design 

A foupman automatic incineration system for spacecraft use was built and tested. 

This design (fig. 2.2.1.1-1) consisted of an incinerator designed to operate at 600 deg C, a 

catalytic afterburner/oxidizer designed to operate at 300 deg C to 500 deg C. (not 

shown for reasons explained below), and a control and display unit. Incineration was 

improved by providing pure oxygen as opposed to air for combustion, adding an 

afterburner and varying the oxygen feed rate to the afterburner. Dual condensers and a 

gas collection device were shown on the report process diagram but were not included as 

an integral part of the system prototype. 

This system was designed to process 1230/day of water containing 475 of solids. 5.0 

kwh of electrical energy, and 0.6g of oxygen per gram of waste solids were required. 

The incineration process took 6.5 hr., 17.5 hr were required for cooldown resulting in a 

total cycle time of 24 hr. 

Advantages of the design included selfsterilization and sterile products. Disadvantages of the design included incomplete combustion of wastes resulting in H2, CH4, CO 

and NH3 gases in the effluent even with the use of a catalytic afterburner. The product 

- 

I 

16 
8 

I 

h 

h 

h 

c\i 

17 
water was yellow, had a pH of 9.5 and an electrical conductivity of 13 microohms. In 

addition, there were quantities of NH4+, CL-, and SO4=, carbon, and solids in the product 

water. Further water processing would be required to be able to use the effluent water 

and gases from this system. As configured, this system would require either a preconcentration process for wash water and urine, additional power for concentrating these 

inputs, or heating the unconcentrated inputs to combustion temperatures. 

An additional drawback to the as-designed configuration is the requirement to 

manually load wastes into the incinerator for processing. NASA wishes manpower on 

board the Space Station to be used primarily for customer support. Therefore, ECLSS 

subsystems should work automatically to minimize the amount of crew time required to 

support them. An additional benefit of making this process automatic would be the 

elimination of the cooldown time required between manual loadings of the incinerator. 

The following devices were added to the basic process flow diagram as given in the 

Service and control valves for maintenance and automatic control. 

Accumulators for system capacitance and ash storage. 

A waste concentrator and a waterhapor separator as penalties for concentrating 

urine/flush water and wash water to 50% solids weight. 

A solids separator for automatically removing ash from the incinerator effluent 

gases. 

An auxiliary VPCAR (fig. 2.2.6-2) for posttreating and condensing the effluent (not 

shown). 

ASME report: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

The following devices were deleted from the basic process flow diagram: 

a. The catalytic oxidizedafterburner was replaced by an auxiliary VPCAR for more 

efficient and thorough oxidation of the effluent gases. 

The condensers were replaced by the condenser on the auxiliary VPCAR posttreatment process. 

A gas storage accumulator was deleted and assumed to be part of the postprocessing 

of these gases by other subsystems. 

b. 

c. 

2.2.1.2 Parametric Description 

Table 2.2.1.2-1 lists the dry incineration prototype equipment and parameters as 

originally specified in the ASME report. Additional equipment as deemed necessary has 

teen added and a revised parameter total determined. This list, except for the heat 

rejection rate, does not reflect the addition of an auxiliary VPCAR to this subsystem. 

The parametric penalties for an auxiliary VPCAR are presented in table 2.2.6.2-2. When 

18 
TABLE 2.2.1.2-1 DRY INCINERATION EQUIPMENT LIST 

From ASME 72-ENAv-2, Labak, Remus, Shapira 

Component Volume 

Incin- 2450 cc 

erator 149 in3 

--------- ------- 

Catalytic 500 cc 

aftrburner 31 in3 

Controls and - 

panel 

Piping and - 

------- 

Subtotal 10.4 ft3 

Feed 550 in3 

storage tank 

Feed Con- 1200 in3 

centrator 

(16 lb urine) 

Fan sepa- 231 in3 

rators (2) each 

Ash storage 2065 in3 

Tank (90day) 

Insulation 

------- 

Revised total 20 ft3 

(45%pkg) 

Consumes : 

02 

Returns: 

Solids 

Weight 

------- 

2625 g 

5.86 lb 

1200 g 

2.63 lb 

- 

- 

------- 

90.5 lb 

8 lb 

18 lb 

5.6 lb 

each 

30 lb 

------- 

160 lb 

600x1 hr - 

interm. 

170~6.5 hr 157 btuh 

(24 hr avg) 

4800x1 hr - 

interm. 

43x1 hr 12 btuh 

each (24 hr avg) 

(12%pkg) (24 hr avg) (24 hr avg) 

0.6 lb/day/lb solids input 

0 -11 lb/day/lb solids input 

Notes 

---------- 

Substitute 

aux VPCAR 

Air cooled 

structure 

Estimated 

Estimated 

HSC 

interm. 

Estimated 

Air cooled 

COMMENTS : .................................................................... 

1. "-" denotes that no specific information was determined for this 

point. 

2. Subtotals represent parameters determined directly from the 

literature. 

3. Based on incineration of 1230 g/day (2.7 lb/day) of wastes with 

475 g solids. Represents wastes from a four-person crew (19.2 

lb/day before concentration). 

19 
the parameters for an auxiliary VPCAR are added to the parameters of the incineration 

subsystem, the total heat rejected will be equivalent to the total power consumed. A 

summary of these parameters adjusted for an eight-person crew and including an 

auxiliary VPCAR is presented in section 2.3. 

2.2.2 Wet Oxidation 

This subsystem is based on ASME Publications 72-ENAv-3 written by R. B. Jagow 

in 1972 and 70-Av/SpT-1 written by R. B. Jagow, R. J. Jaffe, and C. G. Saunders in 

1970. A system was under development to process human feces, urine, and other 

miscellaneous spacecraft wastes, recovering useful gases and water for recycling. It is 

judged for the purposes of this report that the development of this system reached a 

NASA technology level of 4 (table 2.3-1). 

2.2.2.1 Subsgstem Design 

An initial, prototype four-man wet oxidation system was designed and tested in the 

laboratory. This design (figure 2.2.2.1-1) consisted ofi dual slurry feed tanks, a slurry 

feed control valve, slurry pumps, a reactor operating at 550 deg P and 2200 psig, oxygen 

flow controls, a dry boiler, and controls and instrumentation. 

This system was designed to process 330 cc/hr of a 10% feces/gO% urine mixture by 

weight (four-man load with a 25% design margin). 1.3 kw of electrical energy and 

28.4/hr of oxygen were required. Optimum reaction time appeared to be 1-1/2 hr. 

Improvements in the design included using oxygen rather than air for combustion, using a 

base metal oxide catalyst to reduce temperatures and to promote complete oxidation, 

and stirring the slurry. 

Advantages of the wet oxidation system include the ability to handle solid waste and 

nondistilled waste water. The solids produced were reduced to a sterile nondegradable 

ash of very small volume. 

Disadvantages included the high temperatures (550 deg P) and high pressures (2200 

psig) required for the reaction. Incomplete combustion and reduction of wastes was a 

problem with this process as well. Experimental results showed quantities of "3, CO, 

and CHI in the effluent. The product water had a pH of 8.4 and very high conductivity 

indicating a large quantity of dissolved salts. An auxiliary VPCAR (see Sec. 2.2.6 and 

fig. 2.2.6.1-2) for post-treating and condensing the effluent water vapor and gases would 

be required with this system. 

There were no devices either added to or deleted from the subsystem schematic as 

presented in the ASME papers. , 

20 
1 J-- 

21 
2.2.2.2 Parametric Description 

Table 2.2.2.2-1 lists the equipment and related parameters for a projected fourperson flight system as presented in ASME 70-Av/SpT-1. The only addition to this list is 

a power penalty adjustment for compressing both the slurry and the oxygen to the 

operating pressure of the reactor. This list, except for the heat rejection rate, does not 

reflect the addition of an auxiliary VPCAR. The parameters for an auxiliary VPCAR are 

listed in table 2.2.6.2-2. When the parameters for an auxiliary VPCAR are added to the 

parameters for the wet oxidation subsystem, the total heat rejection rate will be 

equivalent to the total power consumption. A summary of these parameters adjusted for 

an eight person crew and including an auxiliary VPCAR is presented in section 2.3. 

2.2.3 Supercritical Water Oddation 

This concept is based upon SAE Paper 820872 written by Timberlake, Hong, Simson, 

and Modell in 1982. The process involves oxidation of aqueous wastes above the critical 

temperature (374 deg C) and the critical pressure (215 bar) of water. Organic oxidation 

is initiated spontaneously when oxygen and water are brought together at 400 deg C and 

250 bar. The heat of combustion causes a rise in temperature to above 600 deg C. This 

process is said to oxidize organie materials at efficiencies greater than 99.99% with 

reaction times of less than 1 min. without the use of catalysts. As a result, organics, 

such as urea, are completely broken down to N2 and CO2 gases and water vapor. The 

solubility of inorganic salts is very low under these conditions and precipitate out as 

solids. For industrial processes treating aqueous wastes containing 1% to 20% organics 

by weight, supercritical water oxidation is less costly than incineration and more 

efficient than wet oxidation. 

Although not specifically mentioned in the literature, there is good reason to believe 

that this process can handle the 1% to 6% solids likely to be encountered on board 

spacecraft, but not without a power penalty for generating enough heat to sustain the 

reaction. It is judged, for the purposes of this report, that supercritical water oxidation, 

as specifically developed for spacecraft use, has reached a NASA technology level of 3 

(table 2.3-1). 

2.2.3.1 Subspstem Design 

A laboratory experiment was set up at Modar, Inc. to demonstrate the use of SCWO 

for urea destruction. A schematic of this system and a schematic of the general SCWO 

process were used to derive a probable SCWO spacecraft waste treatment subsystem 

capable of operating in 0-G environment. Figure 2.2.3.1-1 shows this system. A feed 

waste accumulator is used to provide system capacitance. A small piston slurry pump is 

22 
. 

- 

. 

TABLE 2.2.2.2-1 WET OXIDATION EQUIPMENT LIST 

From ASME 70-Av/SpT-1 by Jagow, Jaffe, and Saunders 

Slurry 

valves 

- 8 15 51 btuh Air 

cooled 

Slurry - 4 15 51 btuh Air 

Pump cooled 

Reactor 1140 70 250x24 hr - 

Oxygen - 3 - 

tank 

- Not 

required 

Oxygen - 5 - - 

controls 

Dry boiler - 30 - 95 btuh Air 

(ash sep) cooled 

Structure - 25 - - 

and plumbing 

Controls - 12 10 34 btuh Air 

and instr cooled 

Subtotal 11 ft3 198 290 231 btuh Rough 

------- ------- --------- --------- 

(45%Pkg) (12%Pkg) estimate 

13x24 hr 44 btuh Air 02/slurry - - 

compression cooled 

penalty 

------- ------- --------- --------- 

Revised Total 11 ft3 198 303 275 btuh 

Consumes: 

02 

Returns 

Solids 

0.64 lb/day 

0.3 lb/day 

COMMENTS : 

1. n-n denotes that no specific information was determined for this 

2. Based upon 330 cc/hr feed rate (90% urine/lO% feces) nominal 

3. Subtotals represent parameters determined directly from the 

.................................................................... 

point. 

four-person system with 25% overdesign factor (17.5 lb/day) . literature. 

23 
A 

I 

_------- 

CY 

24 
used to pressurize to slurry to 250 bar. Pure oxygen is provided for oxidation at slightly 

above 250 bar from an existing spacecraft high pressure 02 gas storage system (assumed 

to be at, or above 4000 psia). Heat recovery exchangers are provided to preheat the 

incoming slurry and 02 to 400 deg C, preventing charring of the solids in the reactor. On 

initial start-up, when there is not yet any heat to recover, the slurry must be held and 

preheated in the reactor before the 02 is introduced to initiate the oxidation process. 

Once the reaction is up to 670 deg C (full destruction of NzO), 250 bar and the reaction 

time (< 1 min.) is satisfied, the reactor effluent is fed through the cyclone inorganic salt 

separator. Effluent water vapor and gases are then passed through the two heat 

recovery heat exchangers where the water vapor becomes partially condensed. A 

cyclone water separator separates the condensed water from the gases and these two 

streams are fed through two more heat exchangers to reduce their temperatures to 70 

deg P. The water and gas streams are then reduced in pressure to within 1 bar of 

atmosphere and the water stream is passed through one more cyclone water separator to 

eliminate any remaining gases present. The effluent is reusable water with no further 

treatment required and a mixture of N2, CO2, and SO2 (from the soap in the wash water) 

gases that must pass through several posttreatment processes to be reused and stored as 

required, 

This system was designed to process 65 Ib. per day of wastes containing 3.9 Ib. of 

solids. The process would draw about 552 w of electrical power and require an estimated 

1.26 Ib of oxygen per pound of solids for stoichiometric oxidation. The process is 

assumed to be continuous over 24 hr minimizing startup preheat penalties. 

An advantage of this process is high oxidation efficiency resulting in the need for 

very little post-processing of the water produced for reuse and no need for an auxiliary 

catalytic oxidation process for the effluent water vapor and gases. The reaction time of 

1 min. or less lends itself to continuous operation. 

Disadvantages include the need for very high temperatures and pressures to achieve 

the high oxidation efficiency. This results in weight penalties due to the increased 

structural strength required of the components and in volume due to the insulation 

required to keep surface temperatures down to 105 deg F as required by NASA Space 

Station Reference Configuration (reference 30). The pressures involved may dictate that 

this subsystem be located outside the pressured habitable volumes of the Space Station. 

This would make servicing difficult and replacement would most likely be on a unit basis. 

2,2,3,2 Parametric Description 

Table 2.2.3.2-1 lists the SCWO equipment and parameters as designed for Space 

Station use for this report. An 02 compression penalty has been added along with both a 

25 
TABLE 2.2.3.2-1 SUPERCRITICAL WATER OXIDATION EQUIPMENT LIST 

Derived from SAE Paper 820872, Timberlake, Hong, Simpson 

b Modell, 1982 

Slurry 

Pump 

Reactor w/ 

htr and insul 

Passive 

cyclone salt 

separator 

Passive 

cyclone water 

s e p a r a t o r s ( 2 ) 

Flow control 

valves (10) 

Waste 

stor age 

Heat exch 

(4) 

02 comp 

penalty 

Extra heat 

reqd to sustain reaction 

720 

985 

985 

985 

220 

each 

3450 

985 

each 

- 

- 

Consumabl es 

02 4.9 lb/day 

------------- 

27 17 

17 840x1 hr 

interm 

17 - 

17 - 

5 6 

each each 

110 - 

25 

each 

- 

- 

55 

- 420 

Return to Earth 

Solids 1.2 lb/day 

so2 0.3 lb/day 

H20 63.3 lb/day 

------------------ 

Heat 

rejection 

58 btuh 

--------- 

- 

- 

- 

205 btuh 

total 

- 

542 btuh 

total 

188 btuh 

- 

- 

--------- 

542 btuh 

2381 btuh 

Notes 

Air 

cooled 

Start -up 

heater 

Air 

cooled 

Liq cooled 

w/reclaim 

Air 

cooled 

1240 deg F 

Liq cooled 

Air cooled 

To Mass Balance 

N2 0.4 lb/day 

C02 4.9 lb/day 

----------------- 

Comments: 

26 
2. 92 mbtu required in reactor: 25 mbtu generated by reaction: 34 

mbtu added by heater: 33 mbtu recovered by preheater exchangers; 

46 mbtu lost from insulated surfaces: 13 mbtu recovered by liquid 

cooling on a daily basis. 

27 
power and heat rejection penalty for heating the excess water to supercritical conditions. Heating the excess water is required due to the low percentage (<5%) of organics 

in the slurry. If a pretreatment distillation process were used to produce a 10% to 30% 

(by weight organic feed slurry to this process, the oxidation reaction would be selfsustaining and self-heating to the required temperatures. This kind of penalty is the 

same for any combustion/oxidation process, including dry incineration and wet oxidation. 

The heat rejection rate listed in table 2.2.3.2-1 includes the heat generated by the 

combustion of solids in the waste water. 

2.2.4 Vapor Compression Distillation 

The VCD subsystem 89 evaluated in this report is based on the Life Systems, Inc. 

VCD2 unit reported in NASA Test Report JSC 17694, CSD-SS-054 written by R. P. 

Reysa, C. D. Thompson, and A. T. Linton and dated September 30, 1983. VCD 

distillation is a phase-change process. The subsystem was designed to recover potable 

water from urine and wash water feed-stock. In this process, waste water is boiled off 

at low pressure in a rotating evaporator and the resultant water vapor is centrifugally 

separated from the liquid and pumped by a rotary lobe compressor to a condenser held at 

a slightly higher temperature and pressure. Heat is reclaimed in the process due to the 

common evaporator/condenser cylindrical wall. The condensed water is centrifugally 

collected and pumped to a post-treatment canister. Solids are not treated but are 

concentrated up to 50% by weight and stored in a recycle filter tank. It is judged, for 

the purposes of this report, that the development of this subsystem has reached a NASA 

technology level of 6 (table 2.3-1). 

2.2.4.1 Subeystem Design 

A three-person automatic VCD system specifically designed for spacecraft environment was built, tested, and revised for more efficient and reliable operation. Figure 

2.2.4.1-1 is a schematic of this subsystem. This design consists of: a pressure-controlled 

waste tank for system capacitance, a recycle filter tank for collecting solids, a 

peristaltic pump assembly designed to handle all of the circulation requirements of the 

subsystem, a motordriven compressor/evaporator/condenser, and the necessary valves 

and controllers to operate the unit automatically. 

This system, as projected for a four-person flight unit per reference 15, is sized to 

process 35.6 lb/dag of liquid wastes containing up to 8% solids at a 90% duty cycle or an 

equivalent of 1.65 lb/hr (40 lb/day). The recycle filter tank is sized to collect 0.26 lb per 

person day of solids. The unit would operate at 52 w and would reject 72 w of heat. 

28 
E 0 

. 

I I 

I 

I 

I 

I/ i h 

h 

d 

c\i 

(L' 

29 
Advantages of the system include lower power consumption and less heat rejection 

than the oxidation process and much lower operating temperatures and pressures. The 

water recovery rate is about 96% by weight of the water in the incoming waste. 

Disadvantages include the inability to process solids fed into it. These solids must 

be filtered out and disposed of with an equal weight of water. Accordingly, fecal solids 

and trash solids could not be fed to this system. 

Although designed to produce potable water, the actual test results of the VCD 

effluent did not meet the NASA Potable Water Specification MSC-SPEC-SD-W-0020. 

These specifications are very tight but at its present stage of development VCD would 

require post-treatment for TOC, pH, conductivity, ammonia, trace metals, bacteria, 

fungus, odor, and taste to meet them. Posttreatment would require microbial check 

valves, charcoal, and deionizer beds, and UV/oxidation. 

No changes in the Life System, Inc. VCD design were considered necessary for 

evaluation in this report. 

2.2.4.2 Parametric Design 

Table 2.2.4.2-1 lists the equipment and related parameters for a projected flight 

VCD subsystem designed to process 35.6 lb/day of liquid waste. A summary of these 

parameters adjusted for an eight-person crew is presented in section 2.3. 

2.2.5 Thermoelectric Integrated Membrane Evaporation 

The subsystem evaluated in this report is based on the Hamilton Standard Company 

unit described in Hamilton Standard Company report HSPC84T03, section 2.0, assumed 

to be written in 1984 and ASME Publication 80-ENAs-46 written by H. E. Winkler and G. 

J. Roebelen, Jr. in 1980. TIMES was originally developed on 1977 to provide water 

recovery with minimum complexity and positive liquid gas separation. The operation of 

the subsystem is insensitive to gravity, combining a hollow fiber polysulfone membrane 

evaporator that distills water under a partial vacuum with a thermoelectric heat pump 

that recovem the latent heat used to boil off the water in the evaporator. The system is 

proposed to handle wash water brine in addition to urine and flush water. For the 

purposes of this report, it is judged that this system has reached a NASA technology 

level of 5 (Table 2.3-1). 

2.2.5.1 Subeystem Design 

A three-person urine water recovery preprototype was designed and tested specifically for spacecraft use. This unit has been tested with pretreated urine at solids 

concentrations up to 12% by weight. By 1984 a second revision, TIMES 11, incorporating 

30 
TABLE 2.2.4.2-1 VAPOR COHPRESSION DISTILLATION EQUIPMENT LIST 

From Life Systems, Inc. Letter FHS-2-8, Feb. 14, 1983 

Still 2039 

Recycle 

tank 

2938 

Fluids pump 17 3 

Fluids 

control 

module 

449 

Pressure 173 

control 

module 

Bacter ia/flow 17 

check valve 

------- 

Total 4.9 ft3 

(45%pkg) 

44 

15 

43 

- 

14 20 

5 9 

2 

1 - 

43 

20 

9 

72 

Comments: 

1. System as depicted is sized to process 35.6 lb/day of liquid 

waste at a 90% duty cycle, or an equivalent rate of 40 lb/day. 

2. n-n denotes that no specific information was determined for this 

point. 

31 
I 

I 

I Y 

I 

I 

E 

32 
many design improvements was proposed. Figure 2.2.5.1-1 is a schematic of the 

proposed TIMES I1 waste-treatment subsystem. The design consists of: (1) a regenerative 

heat exchanger to cool the effluent product water while preheating the incoming waste 

water, (2) a filter assembly to trap solids, (3) a combination gas-liquid separator/recycle 

pump used to separate product water from gas vapor going to vacuum and to pump the 

waste water being processed around the recycle loop, (4) an integrated thermoelectric 

regenerator/HFM evaporator used to evaporate the waste water under a vacuum, recover 

the latent heat of evaporation and condense the recovered water vapor, (5) a forced 

aidliquid heat exchanger used to further cool the product water stream, and (6) the 

necessary control valves and controllers required for automatic operation. 

The TIMES I1 system is proposed to recover 4.5 Ib/hr of product water with a 95% 

water recovery rate at solids concentration up to 3% by weight. This solids concentration is compatible with that expected from urine, flush water, and pretreated wash and 

humidity condensate brines. This unit would operate at 249 w and reject about 852 btu 

of heat. 

Advantages of this system include a low level of complexity, recovery of the heat of 

evaporation, continuous or batch operation, completely automatic operation and 

operation at near atmospheric temperatures (140 deg F) and pressures (1 atmosphere 

with occasional purges to vacuum to vent noncondensables). 

Disadvantages of this design include the inability to process the solids fed into it. 

These solids must be filtered out and disposed of in a 60/40 weight percentage of 

water/solids. Therefore, fecal solids and trash solids could not be fed into this system. 

Product water quality was a problem with the original TIMES unit. Although it met 

generally accepted U.S. Health Department standards, it did not meet the NASA/JSC 

standards (sec. 2.2.4.1). Water quality was to be improved with the TIMES I1 unit by 

lowering the operating temperature, optimizing the operating cycle based on the solids, 

concentration and changing the urine pretreatment chemicals. Even so, the process will 

probably require postfiltration and bacteria traps. The Space Station requirement for 

zero venting to space vacuum will most likely impose a vacuum pump and a noncondensibles storage penalty upon the system as well. 

No changes in the Hamilton Standard Company TIMES I1 design were considered 

necessary for evaluation in this report. 

2.2.5.2 Parametric Design 

Table 2.2.5.2-1 lists the equipment and related parameters for a projected TIMES I1 

waste-treatment process. A summary of these parameters adjusted for an eight-person 

crew is presented in section 2.3. 

33 
TABLE 2.2.5.2-1 TIMES I1 EQUIPMENT LIST 

From Hamil ton Standard Report HSPC84T03, 1984 

Relief valve - 0.6 - 

4.4 0.9 3 -07 btuh 5% Duty 

3 .O 0.9 3.07 btuh 5% Duty 

3-way valves - 

(2) (5% duty) 

2-way valve - 

(2) (5% duty) 

Microbial - 0.5 - - 

filter 

Recycle - - filter - 3 .O 

Pressure - 0.2 

switch 

- - 

Temperature - 0.4 - - 

sensor (4 1 

Pressure - 0.5 - - 

sensor (2) 

Evaporator 1 iq - 0.2 - 

sensor (2) 

Condensate - 0.5 - 

conduct sensor 

Pump/separator - 3.8 20 .o 68.3 btuh 

Regenerative - 3 .O - 

heat exchanger 

Condensate - 5 .O - - 

heat exchanger 

Conden fan - 1 .o 5.6 19.1 btuh 

The rmoelec t - 20 .o 222 .o 758 btuh 

he at pump 

Evaporator (2) - 46 .O - - 
Comments: 

1. Unit described is sized for 4.25 lb/hr water production. 

.................................................................... 

35 
2.2.6 Vapor Phase Catalytic Ammonia Removal 

The VPCAR subsystem evaluated in this report is based on the GARD, Inc. 

T,atalytic Distillation Water Recovery Subsystem" proposal B1-258 written by P. 

Budininkas, submitted in May 1983 in response to NASA RFP2-31178. This process was 

designed specifically to recover water from untreated urine vapor by catalytically 

oxidizing the NH3 in the vapor to N2, N20, and water at 250 deg C and then 

catalytically reducing the N20 to N2 and 02 at 450 deg C. The catalyst used for the 

oxidation of ammonia is platinum. The catalyst used for the reduction of nitrous oxide is 

ruthenium. The proposed unit has been sized to handle urine, flush water, and reverse 

osmosis brine. For the purposes of this report, it is judged that this system has reached a 

NASA technology level of 3 (table 2.3-1). 

2.2.6.1 Subsystem Design 

The VPCAR process has been bench tested as a laboratory model using untreated 

urine vapor. A three-person system has been proposed to NASA by GARD, Inc. which is 

a refinement of the laboratory model. Figure 2.2.6.1-1 is a schematic of this system. 

The design consists of: (1) a pressure-controlled, waste-water feed accumulator and 

recovered-water accumulator for system capacitance; (2) a waste feed pump; (3) a heat 

recovery exchanger used to preheat the incoming waste water while cooling the outgoing 

product water; (4) a filter assembly for removing suspended solids from the recycled 

waste stream; (5) a specially constructed concentric recuperative condenser that uses 

the recycled waste stream to condense the product water vapor; (6) a duplex recycle 

tank, a hollow fiber membrane evaporator used to produce waste-water vapor; (7) a 

chamber for mixing the waste-water vapor with pure oxygen; (8) a compressor/blower to 

force the oxygedfuel mixture through the reactors; (9) an NH3 catalytic oxidation 

reactor with a heater to ensure a 250 deg C reaction temperature; (10) an N20 catalytic 

oxidation reactor with a heater to ensure a 450 deg C reaction temperature; (11) heat 

recovery exchangers to use the N20 reactor effluent to preheat the incoming vapor and 

the oxygen gas supply; and (12) the required isolation and control valves for automatic 

operat ion. 

The VPCAR system is proposed to recover 14 kg/day (1.3 Ib/hr) of waste water while 

operating at 120 w and rejecting 109 w of heat. 

Advantages of this process are the ability to break down ammonia and N20 into 

useful constituents, the ability to process untreated urine, the incorporation of an HPM 

evaporator that helps to purify as well as evaporate the effluent vapor, and the recovery 

of the vaporization heat and heats of reaction. Water recovered from untreated urine by 

the VPCAR preprototype meets U.S. drinking water standards with the exception of low 

36 
37 
0 

> 

1 

a 

I------- __--_-_ 

- 

m 

38 
pH. This system, as shown in figure 2.2.6.1-1, could be used effectively to postprocess 

water from an R.O. unit, a VCD unit; or a TIMES I1 unit to help meet NASA/JSC waterquality standards. This system, as amended in figure 2.2.6.1-2, could be used to 

posttreat the water vapor from a dry incineration or wet oxidation waste-treatment 

process. In the latter use, no feed pumps and no evaporators would be required since the 

input to the system would already be in vapor form. 

Disadvantages of the VPCAR system include the inability to process solid wastes. 

Solids must be filtered out of the waste stream before entering the evaporator. 

Therefore, no fecal solids or trash solids could be fed into this subsystem. The high 

reaction temperatures, 250 deg C and 450 deg C, penalize the system in terms of extra 

volume required for thermal insulation. Post-treatment of the recovered water would be 

required to raise the pH. 

No changes in the GARD, Inc. VPCAR design were considered to be necessary for 

this report. However, an auxiliary VPCAR (fig. 2.2.6.1-2) was derived from the original 

GARD, Inc. design to post-process the water vapor effluent from the dry incineration 

and the wet oxidation processes. For the purposes of this report, auxiliary VPCAR's are 

considered necessary for these waste treatment processes and are included in the BETS 

parametric models of these subsystems. 

2.2.6.2 Parametric Design 

Tables 2.2.6.2-1 and 2.2.6.2-2 list the equipment and related parameters for 

projected VPCAR and auxiliary VPCAR subsystems, respectively. The list for the 

auxiliary VPCAR includes heat rejection rates that are dependent on the primary wastetreatment process, incineration or wet oxidation. A summary of the parameters for the 

base VPCAR subsystem sized for an eight-person Space Station crew is presented in 

section 2.3. 

39 
TABLE 2.2.6.2-1 VPCAR EQUIPMENT LIST 

NASA RE'P2-31178 (BGB) 

From GARD, Inc. Proposal B1-258 in Response to 

N20 oxid 293.6 2 02 12.7 43 .2 btuh 

react + cat w/insul 

Evaporator 591 .O - 25 .9 88.4 btuh 

( HFM) 

Condenser 87.8 11.8 - - 

B 1 owe r/ - - 1 .o 3.4 btuh Air 

compressor cooled 

Heat - - 2.3 7.96 btuh 

exchangers 

tank 

Recycle 306 .O 4.4 - - 

Recycle 

Pump 

Solids 

filter 

- - 14.5 49.5 btuh Air 

cooled 

Feed control - - - - 

Feed stor 918.0 13.3 - - 

tank 

- - - - Instruments 

Comments: 

1. Based upon 14 kg/day (1.3 lb/hr) water recovered (three-persons) 

.................................................................... 

40 
TABLE 2.2.6.2-2 AUX. VPCAR EQUIPMENT LIST 

NASA WP2-31178 (BGB) 

Derived from GARD Proposal B1-258 in Response to 

NH3 oxid 33.5 5.5 

react + cat 

N20 oxid 293.6 2.2 

react + cat w/insul 

Condenser/ 87.8 11.8 

cooler 

Fan separator 230.9 5.6 

Blower/ - - 

compressor 

Pumps: vapor 295 9 .o 

recirc 72 4 .O 

Feed control - - 

Feed storage 918 - 

tank 

Instruments - - 

Thermal - - 

insululation 

------- ------- 

Total 26 ft3 235 

Heat 

rejection 

--------- 

- 

- 

2300 btuh 

1335 btuh 

190 btuh 

0.3 btuh 

4.4 btuh 

35 .5 btuh 

- 

- 

- 

- 

--------- 

2530 btuh 

1570 btuh 

Notes 

---------- 

* If reqd 

* If reqd 

INCIN (Avg 

WETOX 

HSC device 

Air 

cooled 

Estimated 

Estimated 

INCIN (Avg 

WETOX 

Consumabl es : 

02 (Assummed included in upstream waste-treatment process) 

pH adjust 0.0022 lb/day 

Expendables : 

Filter 0.0352 lb/day 

Comments : 

1. Factored from system designed to treat 14 kg/day (30.8 lb/day) or 

2. n-n denotes that no specific information was determined for this 

1.3 lb/hr. 

point. 

41 
2.3 SUBSYSTEM PARAMETRIC COMPARISON 

The validity of subsystem trade analyses largely depends on the level of subsystem 

technology development. The level of technical development may be adequately defined 

using the existing NASA, crew systems technology level scale (table 2.3-1). 

TABLE 2.3-1 

NASA-CBBW SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY LEVELS 

Level 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

- Description 

Basic principles observed and reported. 

Conceptual design formulated. 

Conceptual design tested analytically and experimentally. 

Critical funct iodcharacterist ic demonstrated. 

Component/breadboard tested in relevant environment. 

Prototype/engineering model tested in relevant environment. 

Engineering model tested in space. 

Operational. 

This scale begins with a lowest rating (1) for basic principles observed and reported 

and ends with a highest rating (8) for a space flight operational system. Subsystems in 

the earliest stages of development tend to be laboratory test assemblies that have been 

built primarily to prove or to optimize a process. Accordingly, they lack the service 

valving, accumulators, 0-G specific hardware and microprocessor controls that would 

normally be required on a flight unit. Weight, volume, power, heat rejection, and service 

are not the most important design drivers at this early stage. Therefore, these 

parameters tend to be greater for laboratory and preprototype hardware than for 

prototype and flight-engineered units. In the later development stages, these parameters 

do become primary design drivers, In this study, the combustiodoxidation processes 

INCIN, WETOX, SCWO, and VPCAR are judged to be at the lower end of the technology 

level scale. SCWO and VPCAR are lowest at level 3 conceptual design tested 

analytically and experimentally. INCIN and WETOX are at the next highest level 4 

critical functiodcharacteristics demonstrated. Although none of the waste management 

subsystems studied for this report has reached flight unit status, the phase-change 

processes, TIMES I1 and VCD come the closest. The TIMES I1 unit has reached a level 5 

component/breadboard tested in relevant environment. VCD has reached a level 6 

prototype/engheering model tested in relevant environment. It would be expected from 

42 
the above differences in subsystem technology development that a parametric ranking in 

order of best to least might show the following: 

1. VCD. 

2. TIMES 11. 

3. INCIN. 

4. WETOX. 

5. VPCAR. 

6. SCWO. 

This relationship is illustrated in figure 2.3-1. The overall evaluation results arrived 

at in section 2.6 do show VCD VCD and TIMES as the best parametric performers. This 

is judged to be a direct result of the technology level of the two subsystems. However, 

SCWO and VPCAR, although at lower stages in their development than INCIN or 

WETOX, came out better in the parametric evaluation. This is judged to be a result of 

the auxiliary VPCAR penalty levied against INCIN and WETOX. 

Table 2.3-2 shows comparative data for the six waste water processing subsystems 

under study. The table summarizes the BETS data contained in appendix section 5.2 

program analysis. Included are values for weight (1-G equivalent) and volume for the 

subsystems as installed on-orbit; weight (1-G equivalent) and volume of the resupply and 

return to Earth materials required at each 90-day resupply; electric power (both 

continuous and intermittent ac and dc power); specific energy (wh/lb of processed 

water); heat rejection (both air cooled as dissipated to the cabin atmosphere, and liquid 

cooled as dissipated to the Space Station thermal bus or to a heat recovery loop); and 

technology level as defined in table 2.3-1. 

the wastes from an eight-person Space Station crew. 

All six subsystems covered in this study are considered single unit sized to handle 

2.3.1 Weight and Volume 

The fixed on-orbit weights and volumes for the six waste-management subsystems 

sized for an eight-person crew are listed as items A and B in table 2.3-2 and are 

displayed in figure 2.3.1-1. The bar chart shows the following order of subsystems 

according to optimum weight and volume characteristics from best to least: 

WEIGHT VOLUME 

1. TIMES. TIMES. 

2. VCD. VCD. 

3. scwo. scwo. 

43 
Space operational 

Engineering model 

tested in space 

Prototype tested 

in relevant environment 

Breadboard tested 

in relevant environment 

Critical function 

demonstrated 

Conceptual design 

tested 

Zonceptual design 

formulated 

lasic principles 

ibservedheported 

NASAuew systems scale (1 -8) 

INCIN WETOX SCWO VCD TIMES VPCAR 

Figure 2.3- 1. Waste Management System Technology Level 

44 
TABLE 2.3-2 

WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PARAMETRIC SUMMARY 

for an Eight-Person Crew 

A. Weight (lb) 1033 1226 396 111 92 524 

B.Volume (ft3) 122 95 12 7 5 58 

C. Resupply (90-day) 

Weight (lb) 81 87 62 23 33 66 

Volume (ft3) 4 3 0 -6 2 2 2 

D.Return to Earth 

Weight (lb) 249 255 23 0 466 585 197 

Volume 6 5 3 9 10 4 

E-Power (w) 

AC 760 1263 550 32 13 118 

DC 0 0 0 82 144 0 

Intermittent 16465 0 836 0 1 86 

F.Spec energy (1) 4 85 416 231 43 58 27 

(wh/W 

G.Heat Rejection 

Air cooled (btuh) 1623 1508 2370 387 534 402 

Liq.cooled (btuh) 968 2805 540 0 0 0 

H. Technology (1) 4 4 3 6 5 3 

assessment 

Notes : 

1. This parameter is based on the equipment lists in section 2.2 and 

.................................................................... 

is independent of crew size. 

2. INCIN and WETOX include an auxiliary VPCAR penalty as suggested 

in the literature and as evaluated in this report. 

45 
1200 - 

1050 - 

900 - 

I 

E, 750- 

- 9 

CI 

450 - 

300 - 

150 - 

0- 

INCIN WETOX scwo VCD TIMES 

Figure 2.3. I- 1. Waste Management System Weight and Volume Comparison 

41 20 

190 

475 

46 
4. VPCAR. VPCAR. 

5. INCIN. WETOX. 

6. WETOX. INCIN. 

Although weight might first appear to have minimal effect on objects in a 

weightless environment, it does impact Space Shuttle payload weight for getting those 

objects into orbit. The mass of an item also affects its inertia on orbit and hence the 

ability to handle it either inside or outside of the Space Station. The NASA Space 

Station Reference Configuration (reference 30) in table 4.4.6-3 lists a weight estimate 

for the waste-management subsystem at 500 lbm. If this estimate were to become a 

not-to-exceed requirement, the VPCAR subsystem would be considered marginal and 

INCIN and WETOX would be completely eliminated as candidates. INCIN and WETOX 

have the highest weights and volumes because they each include an auxiliary VPCAR as a 

requirement for producing reusable water and gases. 

Volume becomes important from the standpoint of limited available space both on 

the Space Shuttle and especially within the Space Station. All of the systems, logistics, 

and structures compete for space. Subsystems, therefore must be packaged in compact 

serviceable units. The waste-management subsystem volume estimate listed in the 

above NASA reference and table is 40 ft3. If this estimate were to become a not-toexceed requirement, the SCWO subsystem would be considered marginal and the VPCAR, 

WETOX, and INCIN subsystems would be eliminated as candidates. 

Using the previously mentioned NASA waste-management subsystem weight and 

volume estimates as guidelines leaves the following subsystems (by order of preference): 

1. TIMES. 

2. VCD. 

3. scwo. 

It is believed that TIMES and VCD have the best showing primarily because of their 

high technology level. Conversely, SCWO and VPCAR are lower in this ranking because 

they share a much lower level of technology development. It is assumed that further 

development of the latter two subsystems will yield lower on-orbit weight and volume 

estimates. 

2.3.2 Logistics 

Logistics includes the resupply of subsystem replacement parts, expendables, such as 

filter cartridges and treatment chemicals, and consumables, such as gases and water. 

Logistics also includes return to Earth items, such as used spares and expendables, 

47 
contaminant gases, waste water, trash, and excess fluids and gases that are not 

permitted to be vented to space. The weights and volumes of these resupply and return 

to Earth items are listed for each waste management subsystem as items C and D in 

table 2.3-2. The return to Earth logistics figures in table 2.3-2 include resupply logistics. 

It should be noted here that because no specific resupply data are available for SCWO, 

INCIN, WETOX, and VPCAR, an estimating factor of 10% of the fixed on-orbit weight is 

used for this study. Therefore, the resupply weight and volume figures for these 

subsystems tends to parallel their fixed on-orbit weights and volumes. More specific 

data exist for TIMES and VCD and is used in this report. 

Return to Earth weights are compared in figure 2.3.2-1. Logistics volumes are so 

small (3 to 10 ft3) in relationship to the Shuttle cargo bay capacity (10,600 it3) that they 

are not considered for comparison here. The subsystems are listed below in the order of 

the most to least optimum logistics weights from table 2.3-2. 

1. VPCAR. 

2. scwo. 

3. INCIN. 

4. WETOX. 

5. VCD. 

6. TIMES. 

VCD and TIMES show the highest return to Earth weight because they lose 50% and 

60% by weight respectively of water to solids as brines that must be stored and shipped 

back to Earth. INCIN and WETOX have the next highest return to Earth weight due to 

their auxiliary VPCAR penalty. Generally, however, the combustion-based processes 

have the lowest return to Earth logistics because they process and recover more of the 

wastes produced aboard the Space Station than the phase-change processes. The return 

to Earth estimates for these subsystems include an estimated 10% factor of on-orbit 

weight and volume plus weights and volumes of waste materials stored and returned to 

Earth. The 10% factor is not used for VCD and TIMES. The VCD and TIMES units 

produce waste brines. INCIN, WETOX, SCWO, and VPCAR produce ash and SO2 as 

wastes. If calcium carbonate, CAC03, is used to collect this S02, then 50 lb of CAC03 

is required every 90 days for these processes and 25 lb of unreacted CACOQ plus 34 lb of 

CAS04 must be returned to Earth. This analysis assumes CAC03 SO2 absorbent. All 

other products are considered to be recoverable and reusable. 

48 
560 

480 

400 

320 

240 

160 

80 

Figure 2.3.2- 1. Waste Management System Logistics Comparison 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0- 

49 
2.3.3 Power 

The ac, dc and intermittent subsystem power requirements are listed under item E 

in table 2.3-2. The sum of the ac and dc power requirements in total Watts and the 

specific energy characteristics of the subsystems in Watt-hours per pound of recovered 

water are compared in figure 2.3.3-1. 

Subsystem power affects the size and weight of the Space Station power generating 

solar arrays and the Station power distribution system. For subsystems that must 

operate continuously during both the lightside and the darkside portions of the orbit, 

subsystem power also affects the size and weight of the power storage facilities. Power 

storage, although not considered directly by this report, would be required for INCIN and 

WETOX due to their extended process times (24 hr and 1-1/2 hr respectively). VCD and 

TIMES, although considered to be batch processes, would also require power storage 

since stopping them has been shown to result in the carryover of contaminants into the 

recovered water. Once started, they must run continuously until the batch has been 

completed. 

would be listed as follows: 

1. VCD. 

2. VPCAR. 

3. TIMES. 

4. scwo. 

5. INCIN. 

6. WETOX. 

Ranked in order of optimum power requirements from best to least, the subsystems 

Specific energy is a measure of the process efficiency of a water recovery subsystem. It 

is defined in terms of Watt-hours required to recover 1 Ibm of reusable water. Therefore, 

the most efficient water recovery subsystem is the one with the lowest specific energy. 

The second set of bars in figure 2,3*3-1 shows a comparison of the specific energy for the 

six waste-management processes. If ranked according to the most efficient, the 

subsystems would be listed as follows: 

1. VPCAR. 

2. VCD. 

3. TIMES. 

4. scwo. 

5. WETOX. 

6. INCIN. 

50 
1350 

1200 

1050 

1540 

- 

- 

I 0 Power (watts) Specific energy (watt-hr/lb) 1 

900 

- 

w v) - 750- 

- s 

L. 

600- n 

450 

300 

150 

INCIN WETOX 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0- 

480 

420 

360 

5 

z 

c 

300 - 

F 

240 E 

> 

al 

C 

.- 

c 

180 rn 

m 0 

Q 

120 

60 

n 

scwo VCD TIMES VPCAR 

Figure 2.3.3- 1. Waste Management System Power Comparison 

51 
VPCAR, VCD, TIMES, and SCWO are the more efficient subsystems because they all 

employ heat recovery to reduce their power requirements. SCWO is the highest power 

consumer of these due to high operating temperature (1240 deg P) and pressure (3672 

psia). INCIN and WETOX are the least efficient subsystems due mainly to their auxiliary 

VPCAR penalty, they also operate at high temperatures. The three combustion 

processes would show lower power consumption and better specific energy characteristics if the solids concentration of their input waste waters were boosted to the 10% to 

30% range. With more solids, these subsystems would generate more of their own heat 

during combustion and would depend less on electrically generated heat. 

2.3.4 Heat Rejection 

Both air cooled and liquid cooled heat rejection rates for the six waste-management 

subsystems are listed under item G in table 2.3-2 The sums of the air and liquid rates are 

given in figure 2.3.4-1. Air cooled heat rejection is that part of the process heat that is 

dissipated to the surrounding cabin air. Typical sources are electric motors and heat 

transmission losses through thermally insulated hot surfaces. Liquid cooled heat 

rejection is that portion of the process heat load that is not recovered for reuse by the 

process and is therefore removed in a process cooling heat exchanger using liquid as a 

coolant. Subsystem heat rejection is important because, whether it is air cooled or liquid 

cooled, it ultimately affects the 

thermal bus. The subsystems are 

rejection requirements: 

1. VCD. 

2. VPCAR. 

3. TIMES. 

4. INCIN. 

5. scwo. 

6. WETOX. 

size and mass 

listed below in 

of the Space Station radiators and 

the order of lesser to greater heat 

Like the subsystem power characteristics, this ranking reflects the degree of heat 

recovery employed in the subsystem designs as well as the auxiliary VPCAR penalties 

imposed on INCIN and WETOX. SCWO heat rejection is relatively high due to extremely 

high operating temperature (124 deg P). 

2.3.5 Launch Cost Analysis 

Subsystem parameters considered in this report, on-orbit weight and volume, 

logistics weight and volume, power consumption, and heat rejection, can be used 

52 
I NCI N 

Figure 2.3.4- 1. Waste Management Subsystem Heat Rejection (btuh) 

53 
together in estimating the best individual waste-management subsystem by equating 

each parameter to a 10-year launch cost. These parametric launch costs are then added 

to yield total 10-year launch costs for each subsystem. The exceptions to this approach 

are the on-orbit and resupply volume characteristics. However, the subsystem on-orbit 

volumes closely track the on-orbit weight characteristics (figure 2.3.1-1). The return to 

Earth volumes for each subsystem are all very small, ranging from 4 to 10 ft3 for a 

resupply period of 90 days. In relation to the total Shuttle capacity of 10,603 ft3, these 

values are considered to be too small to justify comparison. 

The launch costs for the subsystem on-orbit and logistics weight and the launch 

costs for the prorated power and thermal systems weight penalties can be totalled for 

each subsystem and compared. Table 2.3.5-1 is a breakdown of the Initial Operational 

Capability (I.O.C.) Space Station power and thermal system launch weights and equivalent costs over a 10-year system life. This information was derived from reference 30, 

tables 3.1-1 and 4.2.4-6. Table 2.3.5-2 compares the 10-year launch costs, including 

prorated power and thermal system penalties, for each of the six subsystems, figure 

2.3.5-1 is a bar chart of the results. This evaluation results in the following ranking of 

the six subsystems from least expensive to most expensive 10-year launch costs. 

1. VPCAR. 

2. scwo. 

3. INCIN. 

4. WETOX. 

5. VCD. 

6. TIMES. 

Comparing this result with the previous logistics comparison in section 2.3.2 reveals 

that when subsystems are compared individually on a 10-year launch cost basis logistics 

becomes the most important cost factor. 

Launch cost penalties for subsystem on-orbit weight and logistics weight can be 

derived by considering the FY 89 Shuttle launch charge of $71.4 million divided equally 

among the full Shuttle launch payload of 65,000 lb. This approach results in an 

equivalent launch cost per pound of payload of $1098.46. When considering launch costs 

over a projected 10-year subsystem equipment life, the annual resupply launch costs 

require an adjustment for inflation. A figure of 7% per year is presently being used by 

The Boeing Company in financial analyses. It is used here as well. 

As mentioned in section 2.3, subsystem power consumption affects the size and 

weight of the Space Station power system. The subsystems will draw power from the 

main bus. Higher subsystem power requirements necessitate a larger Energy Conversion 

54 
TABLE 2.3.5-1 

IOC SPACE STATION POWER AND THE- SYSTEMS LAUNCH COSTS 

(1 1 (2) 

(1) Annual 1 0-year 1 0-year 1 0-year 

On-orbit replacement launch launch cost per kw 

System wt (lb) wt (lb) wt (lb) cost ($1 ( $/kw) 

(3) 75 kw 22,744 1,585 38,594 28,408,341 378,778 

(4) 95.8 kw 10,818 144 12,258 12,194,318 162,591 

Notes: 

........................................................................ 

power 

thermal 

1. Weight figures are taken fran Reference 30, Tables 3.1-1 and 4.2.4-6. 

2. Costs are based on a FY89 Shuttle custaner launch cost of $71,400,000 

as announced by NASA Administrator Janes Beggs in 1985. Assuning a full 

cargo bay myload of 65,000 lb and assuning that the total launch 

costs are apportioned equally anong the payloads according to weight, 

results in an equivalent launch cost per pound of about $1,098.46 

The first-year costs are the launch fees for the system as well as the 

We first-year resupply launch fees. The costs for years 2 through 9 

consist of the annual resupply launch fees as adjusted for a 7% annual 

rate of inflation. This is a future-value computation only. An Internal 

rate of return calculation is not being used here. 

3. This is the baseline power system consisting of a photovoltaic energy 

conversion system (Ea), a fuel cell energy storage system (ESS), and a 

power management and distribution system (PMAD). 

4. This is the baseline thermal control system consisting of a two-phase 

ammonia external bus and a tw-phase water thermal transport system 

including radiators, heat exchangers, coldplates, piping, and punps. 

55 
TABLE 2.3.5-2 

WASTE "AGEMENT SWSYSTEH LAUNCE COSTS 

INCIN (3) 1,033 249 0.76 0.76 11,620 3,701,410 

WETOX (3) 1,226 255 1.26 1.26 12,377 4,219,027 

xi40 (3) 396 230 0.55 0.85 10,116 2,767,098 

VCD 111 466 0.11 0.11 19,081 4,26 1,344 

TIMES 92 585 0.16 0.16 23,920 5,308,622 

VPCAR 524 197 0.12 0.12 8,591 2,362,713 

1. This weight includes on-orbit and resupply weight penalties for the per used 

and heat rejected by the subsystem as derived fran table 2.3.5-1. 

2. The first-year costs consist of the launch fees for the subsystem plus the 

launch fees for that portion of the power and thermal systems used by the 

subsystem as well as the first-year subsystem resupply launch fees plus the 

resupply launch fees for that portion of the power and thermal. sysems used by 

the subsystem. The costs for years 2 through 9 consist of the annual resupply 

launch fees for the subsystem and for that portion of the power and thermal 

systems used by the subsystem, adjusted for a 7% annual rate of inflation. 

3. The heat rejection for INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO includes the heat of combustion. 

4. Power and heat rejection rates assune continuous subsystem operation over a 

24 hr period. This is consistent with the sizing criteria applied to the 

subsystems in this report. 

56 
5.6 

4.8 

4 .O 

- 

I 

g 3.2 

i 

tl cn 

0 

0" 

5 2.4 

-I 

1.6 

0.8 

0 

Millions of dollars 

INCIN WETOX scwo VCD 

Figure 2.3.5- 1. Waste Management System Launch 

TIMES VPCAR 

Costs Over 10 Years 
System, (ECS) Energy Storage System, (ESS) (for operation during the darkside of the 

orbit) and Power Management and Distribution System. Accordingly, it is reasonable to 

penalize the subsystems with a portion of the power system weight and resupply weight 

in direct relation to the power they consume. If a subsystem draws 7.5 kw and the IOC 

Space Station power system supplies 75 kw, the subsystem is penalized 10% of the total 

power system weight and logistics weight. These weight penalties are converted to 10- 

year launch costs in the same manner as the subsystem on-orbit and logistics weights. 

- 

Likewise subsystem heat rejection affects the size and weight of the Space Station 

thermal control system. The subsystems ultimately reject heat to the Space Station 

thermal bus. Higher subsystem heat rejection rates require larger radiator surfaces and 

a larger thermal transport system including heat exchangers, cold plates, piping, and 

pumps. Therefore, it is reasonable to penalize the subsystems with a portion of the 

thermal system weight and logistics weight in direct relation to the heat rejected. If a 

subsystem rejects 9.58 kw of heat and the IOC Space Station thermal system is sized for 

95.8 kw, the subsystem is penalized for 100% of the total thermal system weight and 

logistics weight. These weight penalties are converted to ten year launch costs in the 

same manner as the power system weight penalties and the subsystem on-orbit weights 

and logistics weights. 

2.3.6 Summary 

sect ion. 

Table 2.3.6-1 summarizes the subsystem parametric comparisons made in this 

TABLE 2.3.6-1 

WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSlTM RANKING SUMMARY 

Ranking Weight 

1 TIMES 

2 VCD 

3 scwo 

4 VPCAR 

5 INCIN 

6 WETOX 

Volume 

TIMES 

VCD 

scwo 

VPCAR 

WETOX 

INCIN 

Logistics Power 

VPCAR VCD 

scwo VPCAR 

INCIN TIMES 

WETOX SCWO 

VCD INCIN 

TIMES WETOX 

Heat 

Rejection 

VCD 

VPCAR 

TIMES 

INCIN 

scwo 

WETOX 

Launch 

- costs 

VPCAR 

scwo 

INCIN 

WETOX 

VCD 

TIMES 

58 
Table 2.3.6-1 that the phase-change processes (VCD and TIMES) have the best 

weight, volume, power, and heat rejection characteristics but have the worst logistics 

requirements. The better characteristics are partially a result of the mature level of 

subsystem development. The fact that these processes were designed to recover water 

from only liquid wastes also contributes to the lower weight, volume, power, and heat 

rejection but results in higher logistics requirements. 

The combustion processes (INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO) have the opposite characteristics. They exhibit relatively high weight, volume, power and heat rejection but lower 

logistics requirements. The higher weight volume, power, and heat rejection rates are 

partially a result of the lower maturity level of these subsystems but are also due to the 

increased mass processing rate, higher recovery rate, and the nature of the processes 

themselves that high temperatures and pressures for combustion. The more favorable 

logistics requirements are due to the higher recovery rates of usable materials, requiring 

less resupply and return to Earth logistics. 

The VPCAR system is a hybrid using both phase-change and oxidation processes, its 

parametric performance is therefore more mixed than for the other systems in this 

study. VPCAR displays the best logistics, good power consumption and heat rejection, 

but only fair weight and volume characteristics. Overall, the performance is very good 

considering its relatively low technology level (figure 2.3-1). 

It is difficult to determine a "best" subsystem from the above comparisons. 

Selecting a best subsystem depends upon which parameters are considered to be most 

important. The relative importance of the parameters depends on the mission requirements. For example, a short-mission space capsule may place maximum emphasis on 

weight, volume, power, and heat rejection. A long-mission lunar base or Mars expedition 

may place maximum emphasis on reducing or eliminating logistics. The Space Station 

may place equal emphasis on all of the parameters with upper limits set for each one. 

Table 2.3.6-2 is a parametric evaluation of the subsystem where all parameters are 

considered to be equally important. 

59 
TABLE 2.3.6-2 

WASI'E MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PARAMETRIC EVALUATION 

WASTE MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM 

Parameter INCIN 

Weight 5 

Logistics 3 

Power 5 

Heat Reject 4 

Volume 6 

Total 23 

WETOX SmO 

6 3 

5 3 

4 2 

6 4 

- 6 - 5 

27 17 

- VCD TIMES 

2 1 

2 1 

5 6 

1 3 

- 1 - 3 

11 14 

VPCAR 

4 

4 

1 

2 

2 

13 

In table 2.3.6-2 the subsystems are given nominal values based on their relative 

ranking in each parametric category. Therefore, the TIMES subsystem weight parameter 

is given a value of 1 because TIMES exhibited the best weight characteristics (section 

2.3.1). The WETOX subsystem power parameter, however, is given a value of 6 it 

exhibited the highest power consumption (section 2.3.3). Lower ranking values in this 

Table indicate lower parametric penalties and therefore better relative parametric 

standing. When the parametric values for each subsystem are summed, the following 

parametric ranking results: 

1. VCD. 

2. VPCAR. 

3. TIMES. 

4. scwo. 

5. INCIN. 

6. WETOX. 

When all parameters are considered equally, the phase-change processes come out 

on top and VCD is the best of these. Subsystem maturity and functional design have a 

lot to do with this result. 

NASA Space Station program places primary emphasis on costs. At this time there 

is not enough information on all of the subsystems to determine and compare them for 

life cycle costs. But, as demonstrated in table 2.3.5-1, there is enough parametric 

information derived from this report to determine and compare subsystem launch costs 

60 
over a projected subsystem equipment life of 10 years. The launch costs in this table 

have subsystem power and heat rejection support required from the space station 

factored into them. The results reveal that if launch costs were to be the single most 

important selection criteria, then the subsystems would have to be ranked from most to 

least desirable as follows: 

1. VPCAR. 

2. scwo. 

3. INCIN. 

4. WETOX. 

5. VCD. 

6. TIMES. 

This is the same relative ranking as the logistics comparison in section 2.3.2. This 

indicates that when launch costs are considered over the life of the equipment, logistics 

becomes the single most important parameter. Logistics becomes so important that it 

overrides weight, volume, power, and heat rejection combined. The combustion-based 

subsystems have the best logistics characteristics and, of these, VPCAR and SCWO 

appear to be the best performers. 

61 
2.4 IMPACT ON OVERALL ECLSS 

As part of an integrated Space Station ECLSS, the waste-treatment process does not 

operate as an independent entity. It depends on inputs from other ECLSS subsystems for 

operation (e&, power, waste water, oxygen). It must also have outputs that other 

ECLSS subsystems can process (e&, solids, concentrated waste water, recovered water 

and gases) at operating temperatures and pressures that the other subsystems are 

designed to tolerate. 'Qpes and quantities of the materials required and produced by the 

waste-treat ment process therefore affect the balance of materials processed and stored 

by the rest of the ECLSS. This interdependency influences the process rates of certain 

other subsystems (e+, increased 02 generation rate for the static-feed water 

electrolysis oxygen system when a combustion or oxidation based waste-management 

subsystem is used). These process rate changes may require upsizing or downsizing of 

certain dependent subsystems. Therefore, it can be assumed that each type of waste 

management subsystem imprints its own unique character upon the balance of materials 

handled by the ECLSS and, therefore, upon the parameters of the ECLSS in which it 

operates. Accordingly, overall ECLSS mass balances have been determined for each 

waste treatment process in this report and are discussed below. 

2.4.1 CornbustiowEhmd Mass Balance 

Figure 2.4.1-1 illustrates the impact of a combustion-based waste treatment 

subsystem assuming that the product water meets NASA Potable Water Specification 

MSC-SPEC-SD-W-0020 (it does not meet this specification at this time). The upper part 

of the figure represents the baseline ECLSS configuration (as listed in table 2.5-1). 

Baseline subsystems are represented in individual functional blocks (Le., "CO2 Removal 

EDC"). The middle portion represents ECLSS storage requirements within circular tanks, 

noting the storage item and quantity to be stored In pounds per day (Le., "Carbon Storage 

4.29). When no values are listed within these circles, no net storage either for resupply 

or return to Earth is required. The lower portion represents both the waste-management 

subsystem under consideration as well as any required auxiliary devices in functional 

blocks. 

This analysis is valid for INCIN and for WETOX provided with auxiliary VPCAR, as 

well as for SCWO. These processes require the upsizing of the oxygen generation and the 

carbon dioxide collection and reduction subsystems. They also require storage for ash 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas. Nitrogen released by combustion could provide the 

necessary makeup for module leakage and subsystem ullage loss. Enough potable water 

is produced to overcome deficits in the hygiene water production subsystems with some 

excess water that would have to be stored and returned to Earth during resupply. 

62 
I 

- 

c 

T 

R-m 

- os-'? 

.- coo 

JOZ 

a" 

A I 

63 
A combustion analysis was performed particularly for analyzing the SCWO subsystem using urine composition data from reference 26 and fecal and wash water 

composition data from reference 25. Insufficient data were found for what might be the 

chemical constituents of Space Station trash. Therefore, trash was assumed to be 

similar in composition to wash solids. Trash quantities were derived from reference 13. 

The resulting combustion analysis is shown in table 2.4.1-1. It applies to any of the 

oxidation processes assuming complete oxidation of solids takes place. 

2.4.2 VCD-Based Mess Balance 

Figure 2.4.2-1 illustrates the impact of a VCD phase-change process on the Space 

Station materials balance assuming that the recovered water meets the NASA potable 

water specification (it does not at this time). Unlike the combustion processes, VCD can 

not handle solids directly. Suspended solids must be separated by filtration. Dissolved 

solids are concentrated into a brine that is 50% solids by weight. Because this subsystem 

is not designed to treat solid wastes, fecal and trash solids must be separated from their 

waters, stored, and returned to Earth. In the process of recovering water, VCD also 

loses water in the formation of brine. In the ECLSS configuration selected for this 

report, this brine becomes waste that does not undergo further processing and therefore 

must be returned to Earth. Even so, VCD recovers enough water to make up the deficit 

in hygiene water production with a couple of extra pounds per day left over requiring 

storage for later return to Earth. VCD does not impact any of the other ECLSS 

subsystems. 

2.4.3 TIMES-Based Mass Balance 

Figure 2.4.3-1 is a representation of the TIMES phase-change process impact on the 

overall ECLSS, assuming that the recovered water meets the NASA potable water 

specification (it does not at this time). Since TIMES, like VCD, is a phase-change 

process it filters out suspended solids and concentrates dissolved solids in a brine. This 

brine is lower in solids concentration for the TIMES than for the VCD. Six pounds of 

water are lost for every 4 Ib of solids removed. Therefore, less water is recovered by 

the TIMES subsystem and more is returned to Earth as brine. This difference in brine 

concentration is enough to allow a deficit in the hygiene water supply system, requiring 

extra water supplies to be brought on board and stored at initial supply and resupply 

times. Fecal and trash solids must be removed from their waters, stored, and returned 

to Earth. TIMES does not impact any of the other ECLSS subsystems. 

64 
TABLE 2.4.1-1 WASTE SOLIDS COHBUSTION ANALYSIS 

Assumes Complete Combustion / Oxidation of Fuel 

Amount of Material Required or Produced 

(lb material/lb solid listed below) 

Urine Fecal Hygiene and 

Material Solids Solids Wash Solids 

............................................. 

------------- ------------ ------------ ----------- 

I Required: 

Oxygen 0 -614 1.83 1.43 

I1 Produced: 

Carbon dioxide 0 -70 1.73 1.39 

Water vapor 0 -36 0.90 0 -54 

Nitrogen 0 -22 0.08 0.05 

Sulfur dioxide 0.008 0 .o 0.12 

Solids (ash) 0 -32 0.13 0.33 

Notes : 

The basic combustion reactions are: 

.............................................................. 

C + 02 => C02 + 14,600 btu/lb C 

2H2 + 02 => 2H20 + 62,000 btu/lb H2 

s + 02 => so2 + 4,050 btu/lb S 
I I 

- I i 

t 

A66 
- I 

L 

-- E- 

>N 

e-- 

A 

67 
2.4.4 WCAR-Based Mass Balance 

Figure 2.4.4-1 depicts the impact of the VPCAR waste-management subsystem on 

the Space Station materials balance, assuming that the product water meets the NASA 

potable water specification (it does not at this time). As mentioned earlier, VPCAR is 

somewhat of a hybrid between the phase-change and combustion processes. It filters out 

suspended solids and concentrates dissolved solids in an evaporator. However, volatiles, 

such as ammonia, which are carried over into the water vapor side are oxidized and 

reformed into reusable vapor and gases such as H20 and N2. Fecal and trash solids must 

be separated from their waters, stored, and returned to Earth. It has been assumed for 

the purposes of this mass balance that dissolved solids are carried over into the vapor 

side and catalytically oxidized. This process requires the upsizing of the oxygen 

generation and the carbon dioxide collection and reduction subsystems, although not to 

the same degree as the combustion processes due to the inability to handle suspended 

solids. Ash and SO2 collection and storage is required to handle the oxidation waste 

products. The nitrogen released by the oxidation process is not enough to make up for 

module leakage and subsystem ullage loss. Therefore, additional nitrogen is required 

either as stored gas or liquid or by a nitrogen generation subsystem. Enough usable 

water is produced by the VPCAR to make up the deficit in the hygiene water production 

subsystem with several pounds per day excess requiring storage for later return to Earth. 

b 

68 
I I= 

- I 

U 4 

69 
2.5 ECLSS PARAMETRIC COMPARISON 

In order to more completely assess the parameters of the six waste-management 

subsystems involved in this study, it was felt that each subsystem should be "placed" into 

a common Space Station ECLSS configuration and that the resulting ECLSS parameters 

should be evaluated and compared. Using this approach, additional parametric penalties, 

such BS sizing changes in interdependent ECLSS subsystems, water system resupply and 

waste return to Earth become more apparent. The ECLSS mass balances discussed in 

section 2.4 were derived from this evaluation. The results are more fully discussed in 

this section. 

'- 

The common ECLSS configurations into which the waste-management subsystems 

were placed are shown in tables 2.5-1 and 2.5-2. Table 2.5-1 is a listing of supporting 

subsystems selected for the combustion-based waste-treatment processes, Table 2.5-2 is 

a listing of supporting subsystems selected for the phase-change waste- treatment 

processes and for VPCAR. The difference between these two tables is the inclusion of a 

Shuttle commode and a trash compactor in table 2.5-2 as a penalty for the inability of 

phase-change processes to handle fecal and trash solids. Otherwise, the temperature 

control, air revitalization, supporting water processing, and the health and hygiene 

subsystems are the same. 

Table 2.5-3 shows comparative data for the complete ECLSS associated with each 

type of waste-management subsystem. The parameters listed are similar to those 

presented in table 2.3-2, which was used for the individual subsystem comparisons. 

2.5.1 WEIGHT AND VOLUME 

The fixed on-orbit weights and volumes for the six waste management ECLSS 

configurations, sized for a one module Space Station mission with an eight-person crew, 

are listed as items A and B in table 2.5-3 and are compared in figure 2.5.1-1. This figure 

shows only slight differences among the configurations. The mean system weight is 

11,512 lb with a standard deviation of 458 lb (4% of the mean). The mean system volume 

is 948 ft3 with a standard deviation of 44 it3 (5% of the mean). However slight the 

differences may be, ranking these configurations on the basis of the most to least 

preferred on-orbit weight and volume would yield the following list: 

WEIGHT VOLUME 

1, TIMES scwo 

2, VCD TIMES 

3. scwo VCD 

4. VPCAR WETOX 

70 
~~~~ ~ 

BOEING ENGINEERING TRADES STUDY - (BETS) 

ITEM NO. 

1 

70 

2 

3 

4 

11 

13 

14 

61 

22 

24 

25 

26 

28 

29 

63 

35 

30 

71 

74 

75 

68 

76 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

44 

46 

47 

48 

-------- 

JOB ID INCN 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION NO. 1 

SUBSYSTEM SELECTION SUMMARY 

SUBSYSTEM/COMPONENT 

------------------- 

HX & FANS - AIR COOLING--------- 

HX & FANS - ODOR CONTROL-------- 

HX - EQUIPMENT COLDPLATES------- 

HX & FANS - HUMIDITY CONTROL---- 

C02 REDUCTION - BOSCH----------- 

TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL------- 

ATMOSP MONITOR - MASS SPECTRMTR02 SUPPLY - STATIC FEED ELECTR.- 

02 STORAGE - HI PRESS EMERG----- 

N2 SUPPLY - N2H4 DECOMPOSITION-- 

N2 STORAGE - HI PRESS EMERG----- 

CABIN PRESSURE CONTROL---------- 

POT. H20 STORAGE - CLOSED LOOP-- 

POT. H20 STORAGE - EMERGENCY---- 

REVERSE OSMOSIS - POTABLE H20--- 

PROCESSED H20 POST-TREATMENT POT 

WASTE H20 STORAGE & PRE-TREAT--- 

HYGIENE H20 STORAGE------------- 

REVERSE OSMOSIS - HYGIENE H20--- 

H20 RECOVERY - INCINERATION ---- 

PROCESSED H20 POST-TREATMENT HYG 

H20 QUALITY MONITORING---------- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - HAND WASH---- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - HOT H20 SPLYHEALTH & HYGIENE - COLD H20 SPLY 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - BODY SHOWER-- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - DISHWASHER--- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - CLTH WASH/DRY 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - EMER WSTE COL 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - OVEN--------- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - FOOD REFRIDGE 

HEALTH 6 HYGIENE - FOOD FREEZERCO2 REMOVAL - EDC--------------- 

WASH H20 STORAGE---------------- 

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS PER MODULE 

---------- ---------- --- ------ 

0 SUITS AND PLSS'S 

0 PORTABLE OXYGEN SUPPLIES 

0 EMERGENCY ESCAPE SYSTEMS 

24-SEP-85 

STAI NLES S 

STAINLESS 

TABLE 2.5-1 ECLSS WITH WASTE WATER PROCESSING BY COMBUSTION 

71 
BOEING ENGINEERING TRADES STUDY - (BETS) 

ITEM NO. 

1 

70 

2 

3 

4 

11 

13 

14 

61 

22 

24 

25 

26 

28 

29 

63 

35 

30 

71 

74 

75 

34 

76 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

-------- 

JOB ID VCD 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION NO. 2 

SUBSYSTEM SELECTION SUMMARY 

SUBSYSTEM/COMPONENT 

------------------- 

HX & FANS - AIR COOLING--------- 

HX & FANS - ODOR CONTROL-------- 

HX - EQUIPMENT COLDPLATES------- 

HX & FANS - HUMIDITY CONTROL---- 

C02 REDUCTION - BOSCH----------- 

TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL------- 

ATMOSP MONITOR - MASS SPECTRMTR02 SUPPLY - STATIC FEED ELECTR.- 

02 STORAGE - HI PRESS EMERG----- 

N2 SUPPLY - N2H4 DECOMPOSITION-- 

N2 STORAGE - HI PRESS EMERG----- 

CABIN PRESSURE CONTROL---------- 

POT. H20 STORAGE - CLOSED LOOP-- 

POT. H20 STORAGE - EMERGENCY---- 

REVERSE OSMOSIS - POTABLE H20--- 

PROCESSED H20 POST-TREATMENT POT 

WASTE H20 STORAGE & PRE-TREAT--- 

HYGIENE H20 STORAGE------------- 

REVERSE OSMOSIS - HYGIENE H20--- 

PROCESSED H20 POST-TREATMENT HYG 

H20 QUALITY MONITORING---------- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - HAND WASH---- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - HOT H20 SPLYHEALTH & HYGIENE - COLD H20 SPLY 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - BODY SHOWER-- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - DISHWASHER--- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - CLTH WASH/DRY 

HEALTH h HYGIENE - COMODE/URINL 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - EMER WSTE COL 

HEALTH h HYGIENE - TRASH COHPACT 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - OVEN--------- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - FOOD REFRIDGE 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - FOOD FREEZERCO2 REMOVAL - EDC --------- ------ 

WASH H20 STORAGE -------- -------- 

H20 RECOVERY - VCD-------------- 

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS PER MODULE 

---------- ---------- --- ------ 

0 SUITS AND PLSS'S 

0 PORTABLE OXYGEN SUPPLIES 

0 EMERGENCY ESCAPE SYSTEMS 

24-SEP-85 

STAINLESS 

STAINLESS 

LSI 

TABLE 2.5-2 ECLSS WITH WASTE WATER PROCESSING BY PHASE CHANGE 

72 
TABLE 2.5-3 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION PARAHETRIC SUMMARY 

for an Eight-Person Crew 

Parameter 

------------------- 

A. Weight (lb) 

B.Volume (ft3) 

C. Resupply (90-day) 

Weight (lb) 

Volume (ft3) 

D.Return to Earth 

Weight (lb) 

Volume (ft3) 

E.Power (w) 

AC 

DC 

Intermittent 

F.Heat Rejection 

Air cooled (btuh) 

Liq cooled (btuh) 

(1) 

INCIN 

----- 

11913 

995 

1082 

853 

1849 

910 

2902 

5880 

22295 

9365 

36245 

(1) 

WETOX 

----- 

12104 

968 

1088 

90 8 

1855 

909 

3396 

5880 

5829 

9216 

37932 

11280 11047 

885 925 

1064 1664 

906 979 

1830 3656 

906 1079 

2754 1943 

5880 4589 

6665 6512 

10322 7493 

36773 29639 

TIMES 

----- 

11029 

923 

1674 

979 

3774 

1080 

1936 

4651 

6513 

7681 

29828 

VPCAR 

----- 

11696 

991 

1735 

980 

3414 

1074 

2099 

5229 

6587 

7662 

31793 

Notes: 

1. INCIN and WETOX include an auxiliary VPCAR penalty as suggested 

................................................................... 

in the literature and as evaluated in this report. 

73 
0 Weight (Ibrm) aVolume (ft3) 

12.0 t 

10.5 

9.0 

- 7.5 

1, 

5 6.0 

5 

P 

- 

Y 

.- 

4.5 

3.0 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

'"t 0 

I NCI N WETOX scwo VCD TIMES 

350 

I200 

IO50 

900 

750 cg - 

; 600 $ 

> 

450 

300 

150 

0 

Waste management subsystem 

Figure 2.5.1- 1. ECLSS Kfeight and Volume Comparison 

74 
5. INCIN VPCAR 

6. WETOX INCIN 

The differences in configuration weights and volumes reflect not only the sizing of 

the individual waste-treatment subsystems but also any size adjustments required for the 

supporting subsystems. Although the range of differences in the system weights and 

volumes is not as great as the range of differences in the subsystem weights and volumes 

(table 2.3-l), the ranking is the same in both cases. This is due primarily to the fact that 

TIMES and VCD are optimally designed to begin with. Additionally, these same two 

subsystems do not require sizing changes in their companion ECLSS subsystems. SCWO, 

VPCAR, INCIN, and WETOX have much more mass and volume as individual subsystems 

than TIMES and VCD. The four subsystems do require sizing adjustments in the 

supporting ECLSS subsystems. The INCIN and WETOX configurations are at the bottom 

of the ranking due to their auxiliary VPCAR penalty. It should be noted that all six 

configurations exceed the NASA estimates of 9,271 lb and 773 ft3 for the total ECLSS, 

including extravehicular activity (EVA) servicing and safe-haven provisions as given in 

reference 30, table 4.4.6-3. 

2.5.2 LOGISTICS 

Configuration resupply and return to Earth weights and volumes are listed as items 

C and D in table 2.5-3. The return to Earth logistics figures include resupply logistics. 

Configuration resupply and return to Earth weights, only, are compared in figure 2.5.2-1. 

The data in table 2.5-3 indicate that there is very little difference among the 

configuration logistics volumes. The mean logistics volume is 993 ft3 with a standard 

deviation of 93 ft3 (9% of the mean). Therefore, only the weights are used in this 

comparison. Ranked in the order of the most desirable logistics weights, the 

configurations are listed as follows: 

1. scwo. 

2. INCIN. 

3. WETOX. 

4. VPCAR. 

5. VCD. 

6. TIMES. 

The combustion-based ECLSS show the most favorable logistics requirements 

because these subsystems process and recover more waste materials than the phase75 
3600 

3000 

1200 

600 

0 

Waste management subsystem 

Figure 2.5.2- 1. ECLSS Configuration Logistics Comparison 

76 
change based systems. Therefore, less resupply and return to Earth items are required. 

The differences among the logistics weights for the combustion-based systems are 

insignificant, having a mean return to Earth weight of 1845 lb with a standard deviation 

of only 13 lb (0.7% of the mean). 

The VPCAR requires the least overall logistics of the phase-change based ECLSS 

configurations. This is due to its combustion-like (oxidation) characteristics in reducing 

a greater quantity of waste and recovering more water and gases. The logistics are less 

than for the VCD and TIMES configurations even though VPCAR requires more support 

from the rest of the ECLSS subsystems (e+, 02 supply, CO2 recovery, etc.). VPCAR 

also does not produce a brine as do VCD and TIMES. Brines for VCD and TIMES tie up at 

least an equal quantity of water to solids removed in the waste-management subsystem. 

This water becomes unrecoverable waste and must be returned to Earth. The VCD 

configuration requires less logistics than the TIMES configuration because it does not 

lose as much water to the production of brine as does the TIMES. 

All of the resupply requirements for the six ECLSS configurations fall within the 

Shuttle launch capacity of 65,000 lb and 10,600 ft3. The return to Earth requirements 

for the configurations all fall within the Shuttle landing capacity of 32,000 lb and 10,600 

ft3. 

2.5.3 POWER CONSUMPTION AND HEAT REJECTION 

ECLSS configuration power consumption (w) and heat rejection (btuh) are listed as 

items E and P, respectively, in table 2.5-3. Configuration total power consumption (kw) 

and total heat rejection (thousands of btuh) are compared in figure 2.5.3-1. When ranked 

according to optimal power consumption, the six ECLSS configurations are as follows: 

1. VCD. 

2. TIMES. 

3. VPCAR. 

4. scwo. 

5. INCIN. 

6. WETOX. 

The VCD and TIMES power consumption rates are very close to each other not only 

because of the similarity of their processes but also because of the high degree of heat 

recovery designed into these subsystems. Their ECLSS configurations also consume less 

power than the others because phase-change processes have minimal impact on 

companion ECLSS subsystems. The VPCAR process uses phase-change and employs heat 

77 
" 

10.5 

I 9.0 

I 7.5 

- 

3 6.C 

25 

L 

a 

zl 4.5 n 

3.0 

1.5 

0 

INCIN WETOX 

Power (kw) Heat rejection (mbh) 

1 

scwo 

1 

VCD 

Waste management subsystem 

70 

60 

50 5 

rn 

10 2 

- 

4- a 

C 

0 .^ 

c 

0 

30 

4- 

m 

? 20 

10 

0 

rlMES VPCAR 

Figurn 2.5.3- 1. ECLSS Power Consumption and Heat Rejection 

78 
recovery as well, but requires high temperatures (250 deg C and 450 deg C) for catalytic 

oxidation and impacts the sizing of supporting ECLSS subsystems. 

The combustion based configurations consume the most power because they process 

and recover more materials, operate at higher temperatures, and require more support 

from other ECLSS subsystems. Less power would be required if the solids concentration 

of the waste water to be processed by these subsystems were boosted to 10% to 30% by 

weight. This would result in additional heat being evolved by the combustion process, 

which could then be recovered to preheat the incoming slurry and oxygen gas. The 

WETOX system has higher power consumption than the INCIN system primarily due to 

high operating pressure (2200 psia). It consumes more power than the SCWO system due 

the use of less heat recovery in the primary process. 

ECLSS configurations are as follows: 

When ranked according to optimum heat rejection, the six waste treatment based 

1. VCD. 

2. TIMES. 

3. VPCAR. 

4. INCIN. 

5. scwo. 

6. WETOX. 

The VCD and the TIMES configurations show the least heat rejection requirements 

because of their built-in heat recovery. The 

VPCAR configuration, however, operates at higher temperature and impacts supporting 

ECLSS subsystems resulting in a higher heat rejection rate. 

The combustion-based ECLSS all show considerably more heat rejection 

requirements. Again, this is because they process and recover more waste materials, 

operate at higher temperatures, and require more support from companion ECLSS 

subsystems than the other configurations. 

They are nearly equal in this respect. 

2.5.4 LAUNCH COST ANALYSIS 

The ECLSS configuration parameters, like the parameters for the individual waste 

management subsystems considered in section 2.3, can be used together for estimating 

the best ECLSS waste-management configuration by equating each parameter with a 10- 

year launch cost. However, discussion of launch costs focuses on weight parameters and 

generally does not address volume issues. Therefore, on-orbit and logistics volumes are 

left out of this type of analysis. Is this valid? As shown in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, there 

79 
are small relative differences in both the on-orbit (the standard deviation is 5% of the 

mean) and logistics (the standard deviation is 9% of the mean) volumes among the six 

ECLSS configurations. Because of these small differences and the fact that even the 

largest volume (1080 ft3) amounts to only 1/10 of the shuttle cargo bay capacity, 

volumes are not considered to be significant enough to be of concern here. 

Launch costs for the on-orbit and logistics weight and the launch costs for the 

ECLSS configuration power and thermal systems weight penalties are totalled and 

compared, as in section 2.3.5. Table 2.5.4-1 is a listing of the 10-year ECLSS 

configuration launch costs. Figure 2.5.4-1 is a bar chart of the resuits. This evaluation 

results in the following ranking of the six configurations from least to most expensive 

10-year launch costs: 

1. INCIN. 

2. scwo. 

3. WETOX. 

4. VPCAR. 

5. VCD. 

6. TIMES. 

When this ranking is compared with the results of the logistics weight ranking in 

section 2.5.2, it becomes evident that logistics becomes the single most important 

parameter affecting 10-year launch costs. It becomes so important that it overrides onorbit weight, power consumption, and heat rejection combined. This is the same 

conclusion reached in section 2.3.5 where 10-year launch costs are compared for the 

individual subsystems. 

Configuration launch costs and launch cost penalties for configuration power use and 

heat dissipation are determined on the same basis as for the individual subsystems in 

section 2.3.5. 

80 
TABLE 2.5.4-1 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION LAUNCH COSTS 

90-day Subsystem Subsystem (1 1 10-year (2) 10-yea] 

ECLSS On- orbit resupply power heat reject launch launch 

conf ig wt (lb) wt (lb) (kw) (kw) wt (lb) cost ($1 

INCIN (3) 11,913 1,849 5.91 13.36 91,651 33,228,67! 

WETOX (3) 12,104 1,855 9.28 13.81 93,877 34,824,82: 

SCWO (3) 11,280 1,830 8.63 13.80 91,703 33,453,l-Z 

VCD 11,047 3,656 6.53 10.88 164,071 48,032,044 

TIMES 11,029 3,774 6.59 10.99 168,883 49,083,08i 

--_---------__----------------------------_--------------------------------------. 

VPCAR 11,696 3,414 7 033 11.56 155,404 47,013,781 

Notes: 

1. This weight includes on-orbit and resupply weight penalties for the 

and heat rejected by the subsystem as derived fran table 2.3.5-1. 

power usec 

2. The first-year costs consist of the launch fees for the ECLSS plus the launck 

fees for that portion of the power and thermal systems used by the ECLSS, a: 

well as the first-year ECLSS resupply launch fees plus the resupply launch fee: 

for that portion of the power and thermal sysems used by the ECLSS. 'Ihe cost: 

for years 2 through 9 consist of the annual resupply launch fees for the ECLS: 

and that portion of the power and thermal systems used by the ECLSS, adjustec 

for a 7% annual rate of inflation. 

3. The heat rejection for INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO includes the heat of combustion. 

4. Power and heat rejection rates assune continuous subsystem operation over a 

24 hr period. This is consistent with the sizing criteria applied to the 

subsystems in this report. 

I 
5E 

4E 

4a 

32 

24 

16 

8 

0 --E@!.- INCIN 

Millions of dollars 

VCD TIMES 

Waste management subsystem 

Figure 2.5.4- 1. ECLSS Configuration Launch Costs Over 10 Years 

.. 

V 

82 
2.5.5 SUMMARY 

Table 2.5.5-1 summarizes the ECLSS configuration parametric comparisons made in 

section 2.5. 

TABLE 2.5.5-1 

BCLSS CONFIGURATION RANKING SUMMARY 

Ranking 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Notes: 

Weight Volume 

TIMES *scwo 

VCD *TIMES 

scwo *VCD 

VPCAR *WETOX 

INCIN *VPCAR 

WETOX INCIN 

Logistics 

*scwo 

*INCIN 

*WETOX 

*VPCAR 

VCD 

TIMES 

Heat 

Power Rejection 

VCD VCD 

*TIMES *TIMES 

*VPCAR *VPCAR 

scwo INCIN 

INCIN scwo 

WETOX WETOX 

Launch 

- costs 

*INCIN 

scwo 

*WETOX 

VPCAR 

VCD 

TIMES 

*Indicates a difference in ranking from the individual subsystem comparisons in section 

2.3. 

Table 2.5.5-1 shows the same general parametic trends for the ECLSS configurations 

as does table 2.3.6-1 for the individual subsystem parameters. That is, the phase-change 

based configurations (VCD and TIMES) exhibit lower weight, volume, power consumption, 

and heat rejection characteristics, even with waste storage penalties, than the 

combustion-based configurations (INCIN, WETOX and SCWO). This is understandable not 

only from an individual subsystem standpoint, as discussed in section 2.3.6, but also from 

the standpoint of subsystem interdependency. The phase-change processes require very 

little support from the other ECLSS subsystems. Therefore, there are very few 

supporting subsystem sizing adjustments, with the related additional weight, volume, 

power, and heat rejection, required. 

The combustion-based configurations, however, have the best logistics 

characteristics but the worst weight, volume (with the exception of. SCWO), power 

consumption, and heat rejection. This is due not only to the individual subsystem design 

characteristics (as discussed in section 2.3.6) but it is also due to the extent of subsystem 

interdependency. The combustion-based processes require oxygen and produce N2, C02, 

and SO2 gases as well as water. These gases must be handled by other subsystems. The 

extra capacity requirements levied on these supporting subsystems result in higher 

subsystem weight, volume, power, and heat rejection. This, in turn, results in higher 

a3 
overall configuration weight, volume, power, and heat rejection than is contributed by 

the waste-treatment subsystem alone. 

The VPCAR does not compare as well with the other subsystems when evaluated as 

part of an overall ECLSS. Being a hybrid system, part phase-change and part combustion 

(oxidation), its ranking is mixed. However, its combustion characteristics with its higher 

dependency on other subsystems become a dominant factor. It ranks third in power and 

heat rejection, fourth in weight and logistics and fifth in volume. 

If all the parameters are weighted equally important, as may be the case for the 

Space Station, the ECLSS configurations can be evaluated as shown in table 2.5.5-2 

below. 

TABLE 2.5.5-2 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION PARAMBTRIC EVALUATION 

Param et er 

Weight 

Volume 

Logistics 

Power 

Heat Reject ion 

Total 

Waste Management Subsystem 

INCIN 

5 

6 

2 

5 

- 4 

22 

WETOX 

6 

4 

3 

6 

- 6 

25 

smo 

3 

1 

1 

4 

- 5 

14 

- VCD 

2 

3 

5 

1 

- 1 

12 

TIMES 

1 

2 

6 

2 

- 2 

13 

VPCAR 

4 

5 

4 

3 

- 3 

19 

Table 2.5.5-2 assigns values to the configuration parameters equal to the relative 

ranking of each configuration for each parameter considered. For example, the TIMES 

configuration weight is assigned a value of 1 because it has the lowest weight of the six 

configurations (section 2.5.1). The WETOX configuration heat rejection, however, is 

assigned a value of 6 because it has the highest heat rejection rate of the six 

configurations (section 2.5.3). Therefore, the lower values in this table represent better 

parametric performance. The following configuration ranking is derived from summing 

the parametric values for each configuration. 

84 
1. VCD. 

2. TIMES. 

3. scwo. 

4. VPCAR. 

5. INCIN. 

6. WETOX. 

As is the result when the subsystems are considered individually, when the 

parameters are equally weighed the phase-change processes come out on top and the 

VCD is the best of these. However, when compared with the summary of the individual 

subsystems in section 2.3.6, VPCAR ranks differently. As part of an ECLSS, VPCAR 

ranks fourth. It ranks second as an individual subsystem. As mentioned earlier, this is 

due to its dependency on other ECLSS subsystems. 

configuration ranking changes to the following: 

If primary emphasis is placed on configuration launch costs (section 2.5.4), the 

1. INCIN. 

2. scwo. 

3. WETOX. 

4. VPCAR. 

5. VCD. 

6. TIMES. 

This is very close to the ECLSS configuration logistics ranking in section 2.5.2. It 

indicates that, when launch costs are considered over the lifetime of the ECLSS 

equipment, logistics become the single most important parameter. It becomes so 

important that it overrides weight, volume, power, and heat rejection combined. The 

combustion-based ECLSS configurations have the best logistics. Of these, INCIN and 

SCWO appear to be the best performers. Yet the launch cost figures are so close among 

INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO it can only be concluded that combustion-based waste 

treatment processes are more launch cost effective than the phase-change based 

processes. 

85 
86 
3.0 CONCLUSION 

The parameteric rankings obtained in section 2.5 for the six waste management 

subsystem ECLSS configurations provide the basis for the conclusions in this report. This 

is because the configuration rankings include consideration of individual subsystem 

parameters along with overall ECLSS materials balances and ECLSS subsystem 

interdependence. Therefore, they provide a more complete picture of the end 

parametric effects of each of the six waste-management subsystems. Table 2.5.5-1 is 

repeated here as a summary of section 2.5. 

Ranking 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION RANKING SUMMARY 

Weight Volume Logistics 

TIMES scwo scwo 

VCD TIMES INCIN 

scwo VCD WETOX 

VPCAR WETOX VPCAR 

INCIN VPCAR VCD 

WETOX INCIN TIMES 

Power 

VCD 

TIMES 

VPCAR 

scwo 

INCIN 

WETOX 

Heat 

rejection 

VCD 

TIMES 

VPCAR 

INCIN 

scwo 

WETOX 

Launch 

costs 

INCIN 

scwo 

WETOX 

VPCAR 

VCD 

TIMES 

Several conclusions may be drawn from this summary. First, it highlights the 

optimum ECLSS configuration for each parameter. If on-orbit weight is considered to be 

the most important characteristic, then the TIMES configuration has the lowest weight. 

If logistics weight is considered to be the most important factor, then the SCWO 

configuration has the lowest logistics requirements. 

Second, general trends related to process type appear. The summary reveals that 

the phase-change processes (VCD and TIMES) exhibit the best weight, volume (with the 

exception of SCWO), power, and heat rejection characteristics, but the worst logistics. 

The combustion processes (INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO) exhibit very good logistics, but 

the worst weight, volume, power, and heat rejection. The VPCAR results are more 

mixed because this subsystem is part phase-change, with its hollow fiber membrane 

evaporator, and part combustion (oxidation), with its NH3 and N20 catalytic oxidation 

reactors. These trends are due in part to the function of the processes and due in part to 

their level of maturity. The phase-change processes handle only liquid wastes and can 

only recover 94% to 97% of the water in these wastes. Any solids in the wastes and an 

equal amount of water by weight are rejected as brine and stored for return to Earth. 

Handling a limited amount of wastes keeps the on-orbit weight and volume, power 

87 

PRECEDINO PAGE BLANK NUT FILMED 
consumption, and heat rejection rates relatively low, but the brine storage requirements 

keep the return to Earth logistics high. The combustion processes are designed to handle 

both solid and liquid wastes. They not only recover 100% of the water in the waste but 

also produce additional water in the oxidation reactions. The higher waste-processing 

rate and the higher operating temperatures and pressures (except INCIN) required for 

this rate tend to increase the subsystem weight, volume, power consumption, and heat 

rejection rates. Increased dependency on the other ECLSS subsystems for providing 02 

and for processing N2, C02, and SO2 tend to increase these same parameters for the 

supporting subsystems 89 well. However, the higher processing and recovery rates also 

tend to significantly reduce the ECLSS logistics requirements for water and N2. 

Third, relationships between the various parameters become visible. Power 

consumption and heat rejection rates have identical configuration rankings because all of 

the power required by a subsystem is assumed to be converted to heat. If a fan motor 

draws 1 kw of electrical power, it is assumed that 1 kw of heat is passed to the cabin 

atmosphere by the motor. The exception to this assumption is the combustion processes. 

These generate additional heat, above their power consumption rate, in the exothermic 

oxidation reactions (figure 2.4.1-1). Another relationship exists between configuration 

logistics and 10-year launch costs. When launch costs consider not only getting the 

equipment into orbit but also resupplying it every 90 days over an anticipated 10-year 

life, logistics becomes the single most important cost factor. One relationship that is 

not evident in this summary but is evident in the consideration of individual subsystems 

(section 2.3, figure 2.3.1-1) is the direct relationship between on-orbit weight and 

volume. This is not seen in the ECLSS configuration comparisons because the weight and 

volume values are too close to each other. The values are so close (within 4% to 9%) 

that they can be considered within the limits of estimating error and therefore not 

significant. 

It is not obvious from table 2.5.5-1 which waste-management subsystem is the best 

overall parametric performer. That judgment depends largely on which parameters are 

considered to be the most important. The relative importance of each parameter must 

be determined from the individual space mission requirements. A short mission in a 

space capsule may emphasize low weight, volume, power, and heat rejection. A longduration lunar base or Mars expedition may place higher priority on low logistics. A 

Space Station in Earth orbit may place equal importance on all. If all parameters are 

considered equally important, then the subsystems can be ranked as follows from best to 

least: 

1. VCD. 

2. TIMES. 

88 
3. scwo. 

4. VPCAR. 

5. INCIN. 

6. WETOX. 

Because the phase-change processes rank highest in four out of the five separate 

parameters they have the best overall performance. VCD ranks the highest of these. 

The combustion processes rank the lowest, but SCWO is the best of these. 

NASA is placing primary importance on costs for the Space Station program. 

Although insufficient data have been found for calculating complete subsystem life cycle 

costs for this report, enough subsystem parametric data have been generated by the 

BETS to estimate subsystem launch costs over a projected 10-year equipment life. When 

these costs, which are adjusted for the use of the IOC Space Station power and thermal 

systems, are compared for each ECLSS configuration, the following subsystem ranking 

from least to most expensive launch cost results. 

1. INCIN. 

2. scwo. 

3. WETOX. 

4. VPCAR. 

5. VCD. 

6. TIMES. 

This ranking is basically the same as for the logistics parameter, indicating that 

when launch costs are evaluated over the life of the equipment, logistics becomes the 

single most important factor. Logistics becomes so important that it overrides the 

weight, volume, power consumption, and heat rejection parameters combined. The 

combustion processes have the lowest logistics requirements. The cost figures are so 

close among the three combustion processes (within 5%) that no clear best performer is 

indicated. 

89 
-% -- 

Thb page intmtionrtfy kft hhalr 

90 
4.0 REFERENCES 

1. ttOrganic Compounds and Inorganic Salts," National Conference on Complete 

Water Reuse. 2nd, 1975 (Pub 1976). Edited by Cecil, Lawrence K. 

Labak, L. J., Remus, G. A., and Shapira, J., "Dry Incineration of Wastes for 

Aerospace Waste Management Systems," ASME 72-ENAV-2, 1972. 

Koenig, Louis, "Ultimate Disposal of Advanced-Treatment Waste," Part 1. Wet 

Oxidation, Part 2. Incineration, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare, October 1963. 

2. 

3. 

4. Verhoff, P. H., and Chow, C. L., "Energy Generation by Wet Oxidation," 

AIChE Symposium on the Use and Processing of Renewable Resources, No. 207, 

Vol 77, 1981. 

Imamura, S., Doi, A., and Ishida, S., "Wet Oxidation of Ammonia Catalyzed by 

Cerium-Based Composite Oxides," Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev., 1985, 24, 

Meissner, H. P., and Modell, M., Recycling Plant, Human, and Animal Wastes 

to Plant Nutrients in a Closed Ecological System," ASME 79-ENAs-29, 1979. 

Jagow, R. B., "Development of a Spacecraft Wet Oxidation Waste Processing 

System," ASME 72-ENAv-3, 1972. 

8. Jagow, R. B., Jaffe, R. J., and Saunders, C. G., "The Processing of Human 

Wastes by Wet Oxidation for Manned Spacecraft," ASME 70-AV/Sp T-1, 1970. 

Thomason, T. B., and Modell, M., "Supercritical Water Destruction of Aqueous 

Wastes," Modar, Inc., undated. 

5. 

75-80. 

6. 

7. 

9. 

10. Timberlake, S. H., Hong, G. T., Simson, M., and Modell, M., "Supercritical 

Water Oxidation for Wastewater Treatment: Preliminary Study of Urea 

Destruction," SAE 820872, 1982. 

11. Modell, M., Gaudet, G. G., Simson, M., Hong, G. T., and Biermann K., 

"Supercritical Water Testing Reveals New Process Holds Promise," Solid Waste 

Management , August 1982. 

12. Modell, M., "Supercritical Water Oxidation of Wastes," Modar, Inc., undated. 

13. Sedej, M. M., "Systems Engineering Aspects of Implementing Supercritical 

Water Oxidation Technology in a Lunar Base Environmental ControVLife 

Support System," NASA, Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, undated. 

14. Reysa, R. P., Thompson, C. D., and Linton, A. T., "Vapor Compression 

Distillation (VCDZ) Subsystem Test Report,'( NASA, Johnson Space Center, 

CSD-SS-054, September 30, 1983. 

91 
4.0 REFERENCES (CONTI)) 

15. Schubert, F. H., Life Systems, Inc., Letter FHS-2-8 to Boeing Aerospace Co., 

Subject: Technology Information Transmittal, February 14, 1983. 

Approach," undated. 

17. Dehner, G. F., Winkler, H. E., and Reysa, R. P., "Thermoelectric Integrated 

Membrane Evaporation Subsystem Operation Improvements," SAE 840934, 1984. 

18. Roebelen , G. J., Jr., Dehner, G. F., and Winkler, H. E., "Thermoelectric 

Integrated Membrane Evaporation Water Recovery Technology,tt SAE 820849, 

1982. 

19. Winkler, H. E., and Roebelen, G. J., Jr., "Development of a Pre-prototype 

Thermoelectric Integrated Membrane Evaporation Subsystem for Water 

Recovery," ASME 80-ENAs-46, 1980. 

20. Budininkas, P., "Catalytic Distillation Water Recovery Sub-system, Vol I, 

Technical Proposal, In Response to RFP2-31178(BGB)," GARD proposal B1-258 

prepared for NASA Ames Research Center, May 1983. 

21. Budininkas, P., "Design, Fabrication and Testing of a Dual Catalyst Ammonia 

Removal System for a Urine VCD Unit," NASA CR 152372, June, 1980. 

16. Hamilton Standard Report HSPC84TO3, "TIMES 11, Section 2.0, Technical 

22. Budininkas, P., Quattrone, P. D., and Leban, M. I., "Water Recovery by 

Catalytic Treatment of Urine Vapor," ASME 80-ENAs-10, 1980. 

23. Budininkas, P., "Study of Removal of Ammonia from Urine Vapor by Dual 

Catalyst," NASA CR 151930, November 1976. 

24. Gully, A.J., Graham, R.R., Halligan, J.E., and Bentsen, P.C., The Catalytic 

Removal of Ammonia and Nitrous Oxides from Spacecraft Atmospheres," NASA 

CR 2132, February 1973. 

25. Colombo, G. V. and Putnam, D. F., "Experimental Study of the Constituents of 

Space Wash Water," ASME 76-ENAs-11, 1976. 

26. Putnam, D. F., "Composition and Concentrative Properties of Human Urine," 

NASA DAC-61125-F1, June 1970. 

27. Boeing Aerospace Company, "Aerospace Systems Environmental and Life 

Support Subsystems Boeing Engineering Trades Study (BETS) Criteria," Limited 

Boeing Document D180-28679-1, May 1985. 

28. Weast, R. C., Astle, M. J., and Beyer, W. H., "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and 

Physics, 65th Edition," 1984. 

29. Solberg, H. L., Cromer, 0. C., and Spalding, A. R., ttThermal Engineering," 

Published by John Wiley dc Sons, 1960. 

30. NASA, "Space Station Reference Configuration," 58400076, August 1984. 

92 
5.0 THE BETS PROGRAM AND PROGRAM RESULTS 

5.1 THEBETSPROGRAM 

The BETS (Boeing Engineering Trade Study) program employed in this study 

calculates characteristics of an ECLSS system configured by the user. The program 

considers the interactions between the selected subsystems and bases calculations on 

average process rates taken as steady state. A flow chart of the main program is shown 

in figure 5.1-1. The BETS program contains average loads assumed generated by the 

crew and the non-ECLSS Space Station equipment (table 5.1-1), as well as mission data 

assumed for the Space Station (table 5.1-2). These data are representative of current 

projections for Space Station operation. The exceptions in this study will be that no EVA 

is considered and that the entire inhabited volume is considered as a single module. 

5.1.1 COMPARISON PROCEDURE 

A representative ECLSS system configuration sized to handle the loads from an 

eight-person crew was selected as the baseline for the comparison of the subject water 

reclamation subsystems. However, a commode for the storage of fecal solids and a trash 

compactor for the processing of dry garbage has been added to the VCD, TIMES and 

VPCAR ECLSS analyses as penalties for the inability of these systems to handle solid 

wastes. Tables 5.1.1-1 and 5.1.1-2 summarize the ECLSS subsystems selected along with 

the combustion-based and the phase-change based waste treatment processes, 

respectively. 

The BETS subroutines for INCIN, WETOX, SCWO, and VCD were developed as linear 

extrapolations from single point data found in or derived from the current literature. 

The TIMES subroutine was developed from parametric data supplied by Hamilton 

Standard to Boeing Aerospace Company. The VCD subroutine was developed by fitting 

curves derived from Hamilton Standard parametric data to single point data supplied by 

Life Systems Inc. to Boeing. 

INCIN, WETOX, and SCWO subroutines all intake urine/flush water, reverse osmosis 

brines (condensate and wash water), fecal solids and fecal water, trash solids and trash 

water, and oxygen. They all produce water, C02 gas, N2 gas, SO2 gas (primarily from 

the soap in the wash water brine), and solids. The INCIN and WETOX processes are 

considered to output water too dirty to be used directly. These subroutines, therefore, 

carry parametric penalties for an auxiliary VPCAR as an integral cleanup process. 

The VCD, TIMES 11, and VPCAR subroutines all intake urine/flush water, reverse 

osmosis brines (condensate and wash water), fecal water, and trash water. The VPCAR 

subroutine includes terms for intake oxygen, antifoam agent, pH adjustment agent, and 

93 
Q BETS 3 

- 

Call 'INTAB' 

(Ids subsystem 

tabla dad 

Call 'INSUBS' 

(lists and selects 

ECLSS OUTPUT FILE 

SJbsVstWllS) 

1 ~- e 

b 

Call 'INAVLD' 

4 (lists and ilcu t-J 

mipion 

*Tabla 

*Average ECsS loads 

*Mission parameters 

.Subsystems List 

'Begin 

execution' 

(lists and selects - 

WI 'MSNLDS' 

1 

minion lodtl 

*Minion loads 

*s~brystem summary 

Parameters 

Design Criteria 

Mat balance 

Call '(subsystem clii 'SUBSUM' 

mass balance 

subsystem parameters 

Controls and calculates parameterr' 

subrout ine 

processing 

Call 'ECLSS' 

I 

*Space Station 

7 

configuration 

loutputs summary sheets 

configuration *Power 

Heat loads 

Weights and volume5 

Figure 5.1 - 1. BETS Program Flow Chart 

94 
. 

BOEING ENGINEERING TRADES STUDY - (BETS) 24-SEP-85 

AVERAGE LOADS FOR ECLSS 

PARAMETER UNITS AVERAGE 

METABOLIC OXYGEN LB/PERSON-DAY 1.84 

--------- ----- ------- 

METABOLIC CARBON DIOXIDE LB/PE RSON- DAY 2.20 

DRINKING WATER LB/PERSON-DAY 2 -86 

FOOD PREPARATION WATER LB/PE RSON-DAY 3.90 

HAND WASH WATER LB/PERSON-DAY 7 .OO 

SHOWER WATER LB/PERSON-DAY 5 .oo 

CLOTHES WASH WATER LB/PERSON-DAY 27.50 

DISH WASH WATER LB/ (8) CREW-DAY 16 .OO 

METABOLIC PRODUCED WATER LB/ PE RSON- DAY 0.78 

PERSPIRATION/RESPIRATION WATER LB/PERSON-DAY 4.02 

URINE (3.3) AND FLUSH (1.1) LB/PERSON-DAY 4.40 

FOOD SOLIDS LB/PERSON-DAY 1.36 

FOOD PREPARATION LATENT WATER LB/PERSON-DAY 0.06 

FOOD WATER LB/PERSON-DAY 1 .o 

URINE SOLIDS 

FECAL SOLIDS 

SWEAT SOLIDS 

EVA DRINK WATER 

EVA WASTE WATER 

EVA OXYGEN 

EVA CARBON DIOXIDE 

LB/PERSON-DAY 0 -13 

LB/PERSON-DAY 0.07 

LB/PERSON-DAY 0 -04 

LB/8-HR EVA 0 -75 

LB/8-HR EVA 2 .oo 

LB/8-HR EVA 1.32 

LB/8-HR EVA 1.7 

SENSIBLE METABOLIC HEAT BTU/PE RSON-DAY 7010 .OO 

HYGIENE LATENT WATER LB/ PE RSON- DAY 0 -94 

LAUNDRY LATENT WATER LB/PERSON-DAY 0.13 

HYGIENE WATER SOLIDS % OF H20 USAGE 0.13 

WASTE WASH WATER SOLIDS % OF H20 USAGE 0.44 

AIRLOCK VOLUME FT3 150 .OO 

CABIN AIR LEAKAGE LB/DAY-MODULE 0.50 

COMMODE ULLAGE VOLUME FT3/DUMP 0 -00 

CHARCOAL (ODOR CONTROL) LB/ PE RSON- DAY 0.13 

CLOTHING WEIGHT LB/PERSON-DAY 0 .oo 

TABLE 5.1-1 
BOEING ENGINEERING TRADES STUDY - (BETS) 24-SEP-85 

JOB ID INCN 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION NO. 1 

SPECIFIC HISSION DATA 

PARAMETER 

--------- 

UNITS 

----- 

VALUE 

----- 

MODULE 

NUMBER OF MODULES TOTAL 1 

NUMBER OF CREWPERSONS TOTAL 8 

AVERAGE FREE VOLUME FT3 PER MODULE 4010 .OO 

PRESSURIZATION (PER MODULE) 

TOTAL MODULE PRESSURE PSIA 14.70 

02 PARTIAL PRESSURE PSIA 3 .OO 

C02 PARTIAL PRESSURE MMHG 3 -00 

NO. OF RE-PRESSURIZATIONS PER RESUPPLY PERIOD 1 

HEAT LOADS (PER MODULE) 

LIGHTING & DISPLAYS BTU/DAY 25000 .OO 

EXPERIMENTAL 

SENSIBLE 

LATENT H20 

BTU/DAY 

LB/DAY 

0 .oo 

0.00 

EVA 

NUMBER OF EVA PER WEEK 0 

AVERAGE EVA DURATION HOURS 8.00 

AIRLOCK USED PER WEEK 0 

AIRLOCK DUMP PRESSURE PSIA 2 .oo 

RESUPPLY 

INITIAL SUPPLY PERIOD DAYS 

RESUPPLY PERIOD DAYS 

EMERG. SUPPLIES ALLOCATION DAYS 

ORBIT 

LIGHTSIDE DURATION MI N 

DARKSIDE DURATION MIN 

90 .oo 

90 .oo 

28 -00 

56 .OQ 

36 .OO 

96 
ITEM NO. 

1 

70 

2 

3 

4 

11 

13 

14 

61 

22 

24 

25 

26 

28 

29 

63 

35 

30 

71 

74 

75 

68 

76 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

44 

46 

47 

48 

- - - - - - - - 

BOEING ENGIMEEBIX TRADES STUDY - (BETS) 

JOB ID INCN 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION NO. 1 

SUBSYSTEM SELECTION SUMMARY 

SUBSYSTEM/COMPONENT 

------------------- 

HX & FANS - AIR COOLING--------- 

HX & FANS - ODOR CONTROL-------- 

HX - EQUIPMENT COLDPLATES------- 

HX & FANS - HUMIDITY CONTROL---- 

C02 REDUCTION - BOSCH----------- 

TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL------- 

ATMOSP MONITOR - MASS SPECTRMTR02 SUPPLY - STATIC FEED ELECTR.- 

02 STORAGE - HI PRESS EMERG----- 

N2 SUPPLY - N2H4 DECOMPOSITION-- 

N2 STORAGE - HI PRESS EMERG----- 

CABIN PRESSURE CONTROL---------- 

POT. H20 STORAGE - CLOSED LOOP-- 

POT. H20 STORAGE - EMERGENCY---- 

REVERSE OSMOSIS - POTABLE H20--- 

PROCESSED H20 POST-TREATMENT POT 

WASTE H20 STORAGE & PRE-TREAT--- 

HYGIENE H20 STORAGE------------- 

REVERSE OSMOSIS - HYGIENE H20--- 

H20 RECOVERY - INCINERATION ---- 

PROCESSED H20 POST-TREATMENT HYG 

H20 QUALITY MONITORING---------- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - HAND WASH---- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - HOT H20 SPLYHEALTH & HYGIENE - COLD H20 SPLY 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - BODY SHOWER-- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - DISHWASHER--- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - CLTH WASH/DRY 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - EMER WSTE COL 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - OVEN--------- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - FOOD REFRIDGE 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - FOOD FREEZERCO2 REMOVAL - EDC--------------- 

WASH H20 STORAGE---------------- 

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS PER MODULE 

---------- ---------- --- ------ 

0 SUITS AND PLSS'S 

0 PORTABLE OXYGEN SUPPLIES 

0 EMERGENCY ESCAPE SYSTEMS 

24-SEP-85 

STAI NLESS 

STAI NLE S S 

TABLE 5.1.1-1 ECLSS WITH WASTE WATER PROCESSING BY COMBUSTION 

97 
BOEING ENGINEERING TRADES STUDY - (BETS) 

ITEM NO. 

1 

70 

2 

3 

4 

11 

13 

14 

61 

22 

24 

25 

26 

28 

29 

63 

35 

30 

71 

74 

75 

34 

76 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

-------- 

JOB ID VCD 

ECLSS CONFIGURATION NO. 2 

SUBSYSTEM SELECTION SUMMARY 

SUBSYSTEM/COMPONENT 

------------------- 

HX & FANS - AIR COOLING--------- 

HX & FANS - ODOR CONTROL-------- 

HX - EQUIPMENT COLDPLATES------- 

HX & FANS - HUMIDITY CONTROL---- 

C02 REDUCTION - BOSCH----------- 

TRACE CONTAMINANT CONTROL------- 

ATMOSP MONITOR - MASS SPECTRMTR02 SUPPLY - STATIC FEED ELECTR.- 

02 STORAGE - HI PRESS EMERG----- 

N2 SUPPLY - N2H4 DECOMPOSITION-- 

N2 STORAGE - HI PRESS EMERG----- 

CABIN PRESSURE CONTROL---------- 

POT. H20 STORAGE - CLOSED LOOP-- 

POT. H20 STORAGE - EMERGENCY---- 

REVERSE OSMOSIS - POTABLE H20--- 

PROCESSED H20 POST-TREATMENT POT 

WASTE H20 STORAGE & PRE-TREAT--- 

HYGIENE H20 STORAGE------------- 

REVERSE OSMOSIS - HYGIENE H20--- 

PROCESSED H20 POST-TREATMENT HYG 

H20 QUALITY ElONITORING---------- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - HAND WASH---- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - HOT H20 SPLYHEALTH & HYGIENE - COLD H20 SPLY 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - BODY SHOWER-- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - DISHWASHER--- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - CLTH WASH/DRY 

HEALTH h HYGIENE - COMODE/URINL 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - EMER WSTE COL 

HEALTH C HYGIENE - TRASH COHPACT 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - OVEN--------- 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - FOOD REFRIDGE 

HEALTH & HYGIENE - FOOD FREEZERCO2 REMOVAL - EDC--------------- 

WASH H20 STORAGE---------------- 

BO RECOVERY - Va-------------- 

ADDITIONAL COMPONENTS PER MODULE 

---------- ---------- --- ------ 

0 SUITS AND PLSS'S 

0 PORTABLE OXYGEN SUPPLIES 

0 EMERGENCY ESCAPE SYSTEMS 

24-SEP-85 

STAINLESS 

STAINLESS 

LSI 

TABLE 5.1.1-2 ECLSS WITH WASTE WATER PROCESSING BY PHASE CHANGE 

98 
filter material. All these subroutines produce water. The VPCAR also outputs C02 gas, 

N2 gas, SO2 gas and solids as byproducts of the catalytic oxidation process. The VCD 

and TIMES produce a concentrated brine (40% to 50% solids by weight) that must go to 

waste storage. 

5.2 COMPARISON RESULTS 

Tables 5.2-1 through 30 are the outputs of BETS for the six waste treatment 

subsystems in their appropriate ECLSS environments. Each of the six waste processes 

has five BETS output pages associated with it. The first page is a parametric summary 

for the particular waste treatment subsystem. Power, weight, volume, heat rejection, 

and subsystem mass balance are calculated for an eight-person crew and printed out on 

this page. This information is used in section 2.2 subsystem comparison analysis. The 

second page is a logistics summary for the entire ECLSS configuration. The third page is 

an ECLSS electrical power summary. The fourth page is a heat load summary sheet for 

the ECLSS. The fifth page is an ECLSS mass balance summary. Negative values in the 

mass balance columns represent the use or removal of a material by the subsystems 

listed on the left side of the page. Positive values represent materials output or 

produced by a particular subsystem. Values for solids are not represented in either the 

wash or waste water columns. 

The outputs from the INCIN system are printed in tables 5.2-1 through 5. 

The outputs from the WETOX system are printed in tables 5.2-6 through 10. 

The outputs from the SCWO system are printed out in tables 5.2-11 through 15. 

The outputs from the VCD system are printed out in tables 5.2-16 through 20. 

The outputs from the TIMES system are printed out in tables 5.2-21 through 25. 

The outputs from the VPCAR systems are printed out in tables 5.2-26 through 30. 

The ECLSS outputs are summarized in section 2.5. 

99 
100 
II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

I1 

I1 

I1 

I1 

-. I 

tI 

II I 

-I 1 

'I 

, 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I U.I> 

I ;I,* 

I LIL' 

1 

I -1 

(-7 I 

t-I 

:r I 

VY8.Z .-IC"I" 

... ..I . ,. I -.+ I -I 

21.- I.- 

cll 

L' :.. I 

LI~P II 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

oc 

mu 

.. CI 

41 

'C I 

J. I 

L' I 

I* I 

-1 I 

7, 

ni 

I 

I r, 

L .4

f4 

(r 

w I 1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 0 Y Ul 

I I,I ... CI 

I .IImnhfl c(l 

I UUU. CI 

I P P 3' 

.L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

t' 

I Lr 

'7 

4 

" 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

c L 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

U 

II) 

U 

I 

I 

' L,: 

'3 Y, 

u..- 

- w, 
ORIGINAL PAGE IS 

OE POOR QUALITY: 

- 

I,. 

c' 

'2 

,- 

L 

I 

> 

U 

v. P

W.1 

u 

c 

I 

t. 

'3 

c 

a 

L. 

u 1.l 

Li 

c 

- 

v 

1.1 

W 

2 

L.: 

n 

- 

ri 

m 

m 

.n 

c 

In 

P 

I 

c 

L' 

U 

I 

P 

1- 

I. 

IO 

17 

I 0, 

1 

I-- 

I. 

I ?V 

I LID 

I 

U' I u- .I . rl I N 

4 I CO 

IC 

1- 

Y 

N 

I 

In 

F! 
c I I r L L C'" ' " C'L'L c yu c. L L'L L'C c CI c c u- C" c L c c c L c c-c L 1 Ly ,-,, ........................................ v I I WCC crCC OCOC ccocc CC cc c CUIPC c c L CC-CL u c L I c 

in 

a1 I ,D IP 

II .- 4 

C mN'1 0 00 m71 *. IN - Q .-.& ~nm .I I I dl I 

.3 I I 

1111 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

v1 

-1 

4 

Io 

I- 
I1 

It I I N 

Y I L' 1 22 1-1 

.= i I = I UJU c c v c- rl c c - L c c c c c c c - ccc T c c c c c c c c c c pr n I c 

n tnm I .7 110 -1a1 - r--m -7 

c UI I r- rIuu In 

.+ I.& I N JX-4 

hT ,I I - 14-4 )010..................................#. 

L, I t-1 Picc'rP-.-c C~COC~CCCCCCLC~~CCCCC~~C~ -.- IY 

0 1- 

Id 

m .-I 

d 

Id-1 31 I 

xu I-I I 

m IN 

1s .1 

I 

1 

1 

I 

I 

10 

-1 

,a 

It> 

k1111111 

U.IIIII 

",UL.iUW I u: I., 3 cl u 

m 

"1 

JI 

L 

ld rd 4a 

LTC 

t-rt 

-1.J-I 

44- 

w w !.I 

r I J x. 0, 

I 
w 0 0 .a 0 => ,> u 0 .a 0 o 0 =. 3 3 3 0 > 0 0 3 e 0 3 0 n 3 13 0 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 

c c 00 c c c c c c c c c c co o o c c c F c G c o c c c L n c c c c o t.1 ~oo~c~ocoooc~~~oooo~o3000000n005~~n0 

u ~~~~o~u~o~o~~~~~an~~owo

*cT c 

- .................................... sm m I 

Iul 

IUJ 

IC 

I. 

Iul 

IC^ 

II 

1.1 r c c c c c c c, c c c c c c c c v c c c, c tz c = cc c. c c c. c E c C.C-O 

c 0 0 0 0 0 c> 5 r: '3 0 .a 3 '3 3 0 ,.3 m 0 0 0 ..> : ulo 13 c 0 0 3 0 0 3 c <> 0 3 

L., L. =. o e- L.~~ c o c cI c v w c c o cj c L u c e- c r c c ...................................... 

, Y c c- '>C L c-c'c: c ' c L.' c-,c* c c- CL (i L c c "C c C'C' c GC c c. c m -3 

I 

IC 

I 0 

IC 

I. 

IC 

I 

I 

3 L) 0 0 3 i, 3 12 .2 a c 1 0 0 2 C C .3 (3 u U > n C. 3 3 0 .> 3 S '3 U .> 0 G 

x rr c c c c1c. c c: 0 c c c 0'2 c c cc c e c P c c c c 0 c. L c t c c t 

L') F3073:>3UU3 =.03J00300"3.$ >C.O33C30 33 >o.--o 

-I m J 3 t3 '3 a c 3 3 7 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c, #I 3 0 0 0 3 u 0 0 13 3 3 c 3 3 

.a .................................... 

Pi fi 

m m I 'J - c c c c c c vc c u c c c c c r u- c c c c r. m c. c-c c c P c o c c c c c 'u ;E 3 13 3 J 3 o u 1 m '3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 o u i 2 too u 3'3 o 3 3 3 > 3 3 o a u c c c c c.c u c c P c c CC'C-cmc c c c c u c: c c GCC c c c c r r c. 

c c c o c c; c> n c o N c o c, c c'c w c c> v c u I-' c c o c c L c c G c c c L 

c .................................... u to -4- 7 '0 I I 

L' 

c c 3 n r. - I7 ZP '3 0 2 3 -0 c- -7 3 0 - '3 3 0 2 0 9 0 3 3 3 c1o r- 5 '7 9 c. c cc- c. c. L c c 0 c ' Om'. c co c c c. L L c. c CIC c C.O c c c c n c c 

3 40 .................................... id -OOC-:c3Oo?3oOO0~oonoo~r.=ooo~o~ooo~o GO VIC' 

LJ 

N C' 0 2 -Y iu .> 3 i3 i 030 0 0 0,>a 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 v J 13 0 00 10 

I 

1- 

IC 

1 0 

I. 

I0 

I 

I 

I 

LLI 

VI 

bl 

1) 

t. 

L.: I 2; 

.L I 

IP 

1- 

Ill 

I. 

1-7 

I 

I cd 

IC 

I L. 

If2 

I. 

10 

I 

I 

-. I 

.LI 

CI 

I v)I 

v11 c. 

XI 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I Yl 

IO 

I CY 

I. 

I" 

I 

I 

IO 

IC 

10 

I. 

10 

I 

I 

IC 

IO 

IC 

I. 

IC 

YI 

UI 

XI 

ai 

31 

<I 

ni I 

WI 

VJl 

41 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

-z ~000Ur000~U35~003000~~~30~~~00no3~01 

L' r-cc c ou ccc -ccoc cccocc cccccoc cccoccccc 

...................................... 

x e o n 3 o L- o e 13 moo n n 3 o a o 3 0 c7 c n c) o o cy o o o 13 c a u a c- I CW I 

U m.0 '3 3 0 4 c) C 3 G 2 0 0 3 00 0 0 0 0 0 N 9 '3 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 

I 

IO 

IG 

IO 

I. 

10 

I r- IIC c C. 

CC c - 111 

2 u. II 

I1 

I1 

11 

II 

I1 

II 

t- I I 

ZI I 

Y' 8 c. 7. I 2 uldu 

I.+&#.. 

N 

U 

v) IWI I 

1wa I I c1 (I1 I 

I CNI mww I LL.I> I IdUU 

II 

II 

'I1 

I IU 

IN 

I a: I 

Ul 

.a 

!-I 

. CI 

IP 

I lrlLI14 

cut- - .a 

z Jh 

H-. r3 I CT 

c) 

JI 

c 

u 

lr 

m 

I 
XI 

r-I 

LuI 

El 1 

01 

+I I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1.1 

-7 I 

b.1 

CI 

.2 I 

tl 

71 

c- I 

HI 

-1 

rnl 

I-I 

'A I 

c I CIU I 

. .I 

IL 1mo I LI~ I 

=I I -I1 

c1 

>I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 I- I 

I VI1 I LI I 21 

I1 

: 2: I ai I -1 

I LI 

I hi I 

I -1 

I -I1 I ri 

-N 

mm 

.. CCC 

ccc 

... LTmc 

99c 

'2 u 

" 

... 

au 

Y 

c 

UI 

CI I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

.I 

CI 

uu I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

-1 

v, I 

PI 

L' I 

-1 -.a I 

. .I 

ti f VIN I 

1. I NP 1 U I N4 I 

-1.4 I WI 

I1 a 

22 

Lr 

Lz 

I- YI 

uw 

Lyu 

xL.+ 

LU 

IIO 

2 

3-7 4 

3H 

Lrh 

%U 

I-. L 

Lr-l 

4 

P 

n no 

... 

-Po 

c cy 

.n VI 

mN 

UI .. ai ir I 

-I1 

41 

'0 to Pln 

N 

a 

x 

w 

.-.- NN .-.e 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I -1 

.l 

c 

U 

e 

3 

"J 

a 

r 

w 

-. I I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

L 

-I 

I4 

Iv) 

.-.. __ 

LL L' I IO u1 I by. 

.L I LTO 

CI 

*I 

ri 

4 1 *. 

P c 

\ 

-1 

m 

u 

SD 

I 

In 

c! .x 

c 

Lr 

0 

W 

0 

c. 

3 

c 

'21 

0- 

IC 

1-0 

I .u I I4 

I 0 

I W I n. 

m an 

cPN 

*VI 

u. 

.. 

Y 

2 

WJ 

4 
I1 

I z % o 3 o c u P CD rt a a n m 41- 13 - $2 tn ow m NO r( r. rl em n 0 -pin I cn )RW..................................I . ~~~~~~~~h~~~~~~oo~~n~m

D 

r- im I *I.. Ip 

IW 

I lr C' I 

1- 

I 

I 

I 

N- P. IC 

-.I%= 

II I - * c L 0 c -r u " .- \Du c m .-P L. dL L n u c r i -+dc P W'mC -I- U' I f.3 

w1.&al&l..................................I . (1. ILL +~wcICc-uo c N~L ccc nu CwcC m "CL CICC~CCCL L n I 5 

N-i P IC, 

IC- 

"I 7% 

I mu WI44 I 

In 

Iv >la c 31 

4 N I C" 

1- 

F 

v 

m 

c 

m .U 

I 

tr 

U 

U 

I 

c 

s 

irl 

X 

U 

r; 

L 

Ly 

..... 

X X XCX iJ U U l.xszuulIU 

+It-01111111111 

VI z 
13 

-i 

G 

C 

0. 

C. 

v 

rn 

L 

ul cu 

I 

c 

L 

U 

I 

P - 

II 

I v I w, c. c c c c a m c u CI c t c c c c m G c DC L r( c c c c o c c c c c c I c 1~31,.................................(. 

I c c c c c c c* o rc c c c c L. c o c c c c L c moo m o r c- c c cm LT I o -d I m I 

1- 

la 

mn Y m Pd 

rm FY, 

II 

-1 I 

(01 I 

I-I I -1 I 

-1 I 

-lI 

us 

ai 

in 

1-4 4 +N n~m WI I el I WI I I1 

ill 1 PI I hl I GI I HI u I ~~~~3~-~J~oc33coo~3~~~~~~~

>2c-Jaano 1'1 #4~L....................................l. 

I I r.o3wVI9co~ooooo3uwooo3om3o3oooo.:~oooo~o IO 

I b* 

lm 

IF- 

(1 CI u. N PI I , .-I r-www "l 

I I m AN-N - If 

II 

I1 

It 

II 

c 

. ,ow rl c c v2 c c c c oc u 0' 0 c c FI 0.2 c c oc c c c oc t I (L. im 

Irn 

IO 

I I porno in m 110 

I I a, ,-IcIdFI - nm 4 

........ 

MLI. LLU IY1W 

k w uww oc) 

r-3 I w I au I uu nu I nw \ ICIE~ 

IWlCcW 

um I wx s-3 I ffih. 

hi.lIaJOU 

~1a PLLI u w u I* II. 

11111 

UJt- I LrW 

I 

ALTrLU 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

10 

d 

U 

IO 

P 
ORIGINAL PAGE XS 

OF POOR QUALITX 

e 

v 

h 

h 

L 'I, 

I 

> 

U 

u> h 

tu I1 

3 CJJ I I i v. v1 I I 

U 

.l 

U 

:rl 

x 

Iww 

JJ 3 

L. 

L 

v. 

I 

c 

U 

U 

I 

P 

m 

.- 

I I IUI I 

I I IUI I 

a1 le1 I UIU el O-NCU I 

.-V&iIa. I 

uww- t-I WUA-II I 

c 

YJUW4Y I 

uwawui 

"at-=& I UWOY I Elrdl I. l-l . 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

(r! 

U 

4 

.& 

I> 

t. 

v) 

.o 

N 

zi 

1 

I 

v1 

4 

a 

I-' 

0 

r. 
I 

c c c c o c. 0 c c. c c c c c c c t- n c c c. u c. r_ c. c o c r n c I, c c c c I c u, 3 0 o >r J o 3 o o o o 3 o rn 3 o 3? 3.n 3 3 3 oh o '3 3 o 3 o o .=. I 'r 

4 0 c: C' c c c c v 'I c 0 c c c c 0 0 c c L7 0 u c 0 0 (3 c " L 0 c. c c' c. 0 I cj ...................................... 

m 40 I 

3 ~a c: 0 0 0 2 0 3 '3 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 3 13 13 13 3 0 3 0 " 0 0 c, 3 3 0 0 13 ', 

w t3 3 o o o c 3 0 o 3 c. 3 o o rI 

3 co 3 3,3 3 3 3.3 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 u 0 

a C C C C C C>L CC C2 C CC:tiCImGC,t C 0.C CIC CL'C C,L,C<.eCC Ca I C 

I I 

I c R CI C C C CZ '7 C C C C' c C C C C C 0 C C 0 W C C G C V C: C CZ C-0 C 0 L G I CI 

c: o o o -r ,> o o 5 o J a .> 3 a 3 3 o .3 I c. ...................................... 

I? 0 3 c 3 0 3 3 

N 

m 

I 3 

p1 I '1 I I 

c c c c n c NC c LT c c c cc c w c c c c c rr.r c c c o c r c c c c c'c I r 2 0 0 .> 3 3 'U 3 0 mn.3 '2 <, 2 3 0 4 0 <> 3 3 0 " 0 0 3 0 3 0 I> 0 0 0 3 3 3 I 71 

c cc,cc c.ucc rccccc c ~COC~COC~CC~~-CCCOCCC I u ...................................... 

c. o oc ea- c c pic c.. c c c G rn eo G c c pi C,G o c c c c. c L; c. n c c. I N rn 4m v 9 19. 

I I I 

cc33100333c.~~^3~0?~330031000000"703713 

...................................... 

C 0 C, C C C e C C C C C C C L C C 0 0 C. C C C C C. C 0 G C C: C C 0 C C c' I C 

N0>0~N00c~O~OO~~~O0C~~3~33~~3OO~~~O~C

-4 0 0 2 - 0 0 0 

9 UI - L; 1 3 <> G 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 I 

I 

I I 

I' I h 

I 

UJO 

h. 

II 

I 

... ...... .. ............... ... r r 0 L c c C 0 c WI I c 

r(> 3 0 '3 P- 0 3 I 0 

mc~c~nuc ~c~.ccc~crcccccc-o~~~occ~co~~~ IC ~Q300~~UC~031'33070030~~~03000~0~C0~~~ ....................................... 10 

0 

c I h 

I 

3 Ln 3 '3 3 0 3 3 3 C 0 0 0 5 v13 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 c3 C 0 0 

0 0 0 3 3 n 0 c, 3 J, 3 3 3 0 i3 0 0 0 0 3 c? c m 3 0 0 0 0 n 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 I 

I I 

I I I I a I- I.U 

cll I IZUlC( u I I I chlc'r 

LL I I IUArnU 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

u: 

-1 

c 

.L: 

c 

H 

E 

0 

r: 

In 
ORIGIN& PAGE IS 

OF POOR QUALIm 

5; 

VI 

19 I 

I 1I1 

I1 

11 

11 

I1 

I1 

I1 

I1 

I1 

I1 

11 

I1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 01 

8-1 

I 

e1 

01 

71 I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I -1 

I 

I .I 

L. I i-1 

I 21 

L2 I 

-41 

u: t I E. .c 1 

IL. a I 

.i .3 I 

-c I 

UI 

I 1. I 

.z I *VI 

LIUl 

;I I 

LA u> I 

21 

v, u I 

'4 ril I c I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

$9 I 

'I 

.I 

I 

I 

I 

h :n I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I VI I LI 

I 

I 

9 VI 

I1 

I1 

11 

I1 

I1 

It 

I1 

11 

I1 

It 

I1 

I1 

I1 

I1 

I1 

I 

I 

I 

I E 

i;" 

VI B 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I u. 1- :7L IC WH 

IO LS 

I 

lil 00 

I. .. 10 *DO IO. InF 

1 

I 

I3 

IC 

I" 

In 

IU 2 la cw I UU 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

> 

4 

L 

\ 

- 

a: 

I 

1 VI 

I 41 I 

I 

I 

YI ... CII 2c-3 eirr nm 

NN 

tT 

Ii 

Ir 

4 

0 

4 

t 

c 
U. -* 

Q 

;1 

3 

3 

0 

c, I1 

b. 

2 

U 

5 

.= Ins 

v 

.. UI 

Ln 

u 

Ln 

u1 

I 

c 

U 

U 

I 

P .- 

w lL I.' I UI 

WCWJL cl 10uLOau 

a 40 

I Lrl I 

I uc I Q 'J I clu 

I LLW 

I Lr (ll 

I wz IYY 

1 

. C'L 

iw (3 0 

Uhh 

> cc 

N 
I' '" 

4 

c, I 

U 

c1 V>ccccccuu~c~L cocc CCUDCCC c -covccococcc I0 S..................................I . N m 7- 4rt I m -N m la 

In Iu) 

GCOCCCIUQCCCCCCOOOCOCG~~~~CCCOO~~~IC 

I 

I 

I 

I ~oo33oc~m74-lo 30JCCCtn3CZC 54:.OOCI7PO3C'~.- 1.3. 

le..................................#. 

I oo35co~3o5o3o1oooouoo~m~~~oo~Ooo!n~l0 I m c I-. m 0.- .-L I a I -4m m im 

Y' I Yi 

1 I-. c e c L c L ' C c- c I-'L c c L c-c. c L: c c t% L- c; L c c c " C. c c-" L. I Q. 

....................................... 

I I- c c c. c CL~ c c c- c c. L: v c c c c CI c- c c: w c 0 C'C c, c L = c Y'O c I d 

I 3 nNm 9 uc m--r .s IO, 

I .-8 - N 14IYm 1- 

I 

I 

I 

IN 

7-1 

r. 7-7 I 

'3 3 .? 

I; r. c I 

IWI 1-1 

IS1 

I1 

I I 

1x1 

IWI 

63 I I. 

I 

1 

v1 

3 

4 

I0 

Lw 

3; 

CI 

I 

CI 

ij 1.J 

I 

c 
.... wr ... m \I I - w .A 3 I I 

H .LL I I 

- Y, UJ I I '3 '01 I I 

c, ri 

n 

4 

3 

w 

X 

U 

.. UI 

m 

L 

L7 

n 

I 

r. 

U 

0 

I 

c - 

IlIIllll 

I I I1 I I IO 

=P 

,111 I I Ik ii i i i I ii I llcll I la 

11 IUI I llI I I(LI I IV I I v.l- I I -1w I .2kl-: I I ou. t-. CI u t-.u I I u u1 

ZPILUU I I c 

IWI 

I bo I cw I CN 

I LLw 

8 la Id 

I Id a I YL 

I 

v) 

v) 

l-l 

U 

W 

Z 

0 
OR!Cm PAGE 18 

OF POOg QUALITY 

3 

...................................... 

~CCELCCCOOCCCUOC~C CCCUCC COCUOCG&LGOG I L. 

"l -43 I 

I I 

ouoci',ocJoo"33oo333o0000000030CO >a33 I r 

Q 3 I, 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 c 0 n (3 Q 0 3 2 .Y 0 J 3 0 3 0 i3 0 0 3 0 J 5 0 I 0 ...................................... 

m .a 0 0 0 c, 0 0 a 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 3 0 L. v c J 0 0 0 3 a I s l\r N I 

-l m 1 

o~~~~~~~.-m~~c~r~w~~~ccm~cccrcc~cIF 

'90'33 30 000~3000'30-00033~000nOOOOOOOO 3 1 m c c o c o c u) c. L r c o c vc c m c, c c c c u o o CI c c c c c o c L c c I o .................................... I. 

In r)n * +I 111 

I I I 

Q C C-C C C E'C C CGOC CC C'C CiOC C2- C C C CG C C OC C CL-0 5 I C 

I 

~LCCCCaOCNCOOLOC~CC~Oc~N~OO~~~~~OCCCCC IN 

3~~occo~~o~o3~~~~Jo"o3~~oo~~~~~.~0

CC'GC C L C OC C UL C L~OOCiOC~t GC OL C OOCCC OC'C C C C I C 

N 0 0 C .Y C< G e 0 0 0.0 0 0 G 0 0 0 3 0 0 13 3 '3 0 0 0 C 3 ._ J 0 3 2.3 S 1 0 ...................................... 

-4 0 0 2 4 '3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 0 n 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 '> 0 3 2 3 I 0 9 Y. c 

1 

1 

I 

L: c c 0 E -, e: u v. u r L L, c. L' c u ~3 L~ e 6 u c, c c 0 c c L: t' v c L-c N I UI " = 83 0 ID c ,> 0 r: 0 0 c 0 .=I 3 0 '3 0 0 n n L) 0 0 '3 0 ,> 0 $3 0 0 c 0 3 -2 I 3 

4 e' C' c e I-! c c, L. * 0 L L: c a 0 e' 0 c- 0 e, 0 cj L- c c, c c L E 0 0 u c L; e I (u 

................................... .. &- 0 0" C' c rv 0 c m v L 0 0 c c 0 u 0 C." c: c L. u L " ', 0 0 u u CI L, " 0 I 0 

I1 ai I 

U)(L ...................................... E Ih ~"CCOC~~CCOO"UOC~-v~cvucCc~~c~CCuLccc~ IC 

.<IC1 I I1 

,212 I ai 

41r ....................................... * IX 0000c~'303~00~o00000000~00~000>~0000~1~ 

IU r( I N I I 

I I I 

I 

y\ 

- f v) 
I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

G 

c 

4 13 

,-I ", L, 

$0 

z 

r 

I 

IO 

I CI 

IU 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

L! 

U 

t 

U 

LIf2 

a: 

c 

I.. 

I> 

I. 

3: 

r 

2 

c 

Id 

P 

- 

4 

I 

IIz 

0 

1.1 

U 

d 

c 

0 

4 

- 

I.' 

E * 

u; 

04 

10 

- 

ooc 

c I --c 

... 

:a m 

L-IICCC 

f'ictc 

-1 ... :> I 

kl 

4 I 

- 

v) 

7 

t - in 

!d 

-1 

U 

VI 

z 

Lo 

I 

0 

.r 

U 

a, 

Y 

L 

I4 

l.1 

I 

-.I 

w: I 

Cl I 

v I UIrn I x ..I . I. I -?4 1 N 

x I cc I ,\ I? I .4 I + Wl I 

WI 

-SI 0 

x 

b 

V 

VJ 

mi 

nw .J 

YI u .z 

r24 c uu u 

rrl 

c v, 

!W c 

n -1 3 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 * 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

4 

c 

a 

w 

u 

I-. 

r 

C' 

L 

U 

r: 

&.I 

Lu 

0 

7. 

I.' 

i. 

W * 

V2 

m 

1 

VJ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

r 

.i 

L 

\ 

U 

&J 

- 

c 

IC( 

2 

7 

a 

W 

a 

4 

I4 

L' 

b' 

U 

4 

-' 

U 

n 

"; 

v) 

.t 

i 

E 

b' c 

0: * 

U1 

e1 

2 

VI 

ORIGINAL PAGE IS 

PS WR QUALITY, 
LC I 

:Lc( I el 0 I CI c u, C - C W J) c U I\ m r I? u m LT - c mm r.r \o c c Y P e; m d d L c- c u IC - I c .............................................. 

L I c u - u c ni~v~v -8 u - \, -r 9 u U.L u,~,c u u c w r c c P uclu IC,P wv 1 I Y k- I c(u *P NO, IN 

u 

LI1 

w 

n 

u 

L 

c 

7 

Y' 

a 

0 

W 

iUJ 

r 

Vm 

a 

ul U, 

.U 

I 

xx 

r a. +. 

u 

U 

I 

P 
IO 

I. 

1m 

IC 

110 

I* 

IN 

I. 

ir 

Iro 

In 

IW 

IN 

I. 

I oil 

In 

1-7 

im 

rn 

rn 

4 

u 

Ra 

-- 0 MI 

3 c u 1 I L-*L c c-C c "L L c L .il L L c I-lC c L c C'L c L C'C L C'C L ' L c L L c c h .. -1 ,z.................................... 

U. 31 I -fi NN-1.) .- vi L'c C' I I I c c c E c c c c c c v 0 c c m c c c c c L. c c L c L c c c c ' L c " L' L 

-m WI I 4 m mNm 00 tn~.+m Nir 

I. 

Ipi 

I '0 

ID 

I4 

Ia 

'3 

U 

u 

w 

L 

bi i c~u~~~ooo~o~~uco~ooo~~~~

IL)U.................................... 

I I coo~~noo3~oooc51~ooo~~coooooo~c)~~oo0o I I 0 Icc~mw N 

I I r- 4N-N d 

I1 

II 

II 

I1 

II 

I1 

I I mt~ccrc-~-a~cc -CCC cac c LC -KC c cccc CCCLLC c c 1 .......................................... 

I I CC2CPInUC CC.' L cc CICUCCC OC-E E LCCCCC GLICCCC 

I I 0 OJmJI N 

I I r -N-& - 

m nm 

N 

m "-39 

r\ 

rr; 

8 v)c 

r+. . c. .-? .-. N .?' . + . M .. .4 . c -8 * ... ..i .. In -t .-. .4 d .- d w .- .-. 9 m - M .. 4 I 

rn 

rl 

N 

z 

Lr' 

U 

a 

7 

4 

z 

UI 

I 

c 

U 

V 

I 

c 

.4 
32 1-1 

*Z L? I3 I mu C 0 w-i LIC c r c c c c c t c c o c.c L c t c c c t c c c c c c c N- I w L-i lJI3....................................1 . 1 I CI I ccco U-.-LC ccccc c-LCCGGC ccr c CGCC CCCCOC-~ icv 

1'2 -121 r mt-m 4 

0 

ayl 

C 

U 

.I) 

I 

c 

c, (-3 

I 

f- - 

y 

Y 

u) 

L 

4 

>. 

111111 

Ill111 

1111l1 

111111 

I I la1 I I 1 1.L I I IIlXl I I I u>b- I I l.dw.:l I 

t u.u i-.u I I 

7_r(LUuI I 

luCW3 I'A 

22zlA- I u L.0 D 0 h I LC 

n.UU4H IO 

AU .UYUIL 

U EVHG 

ua.u a ~r I wwww 

5-2 i.7 

Id trl w w WkCC 

uuuu *>** 

1131 

I 

I 

10 

.a 

4 

?- 

U 

LH 
QRIGINAL PAGE IS 

m, POOR QUALIW 

1I-I ........................................ IU OJOOOOCOO3O3GOoCOOGOOvoo4OO0000COOOOOOC~OOGOOl~ c I -I 

m II 

-1 - I b rc>c eccc c cc c c cc ccn ccc cwc c c cc LC E cc c~cc c c I c \I-. ~3P30033333030c0u00c ~c~~c"9530"0~33330310 L I . "1 ~. - c ~-~ c: L c> ._____ c L c c c c ~~~~~ L c L L. c D ~ c. G c 0 n y," 0 C c, L'c. ' e. c n c c c c I c .2l< ........................................ v I 5 o c c L. e L v L c. t c c c- c c tv c; o c e- a c c c' o c c c c c c c c c c L c I C -4.0 

I 

1 

I 

-3 Y.1.a ........................................ n u I L moo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I o Irl c\' 

31m 

..... IY 

m 

I 

I 

1 

-. 2 Ulrl 

a 2 I -7 c: c c c CLC~L or c c c c: -3~ c c c c r c-c c c c c c c c c c C c C C I - aiu ~~~oo~~~~~~o~~~~

c - I .I c c c oc E s CCI~C c c c c C+C c cc c c c oc c c c c c c c c c c c c 10 

L c I .. CfCC c-c -c c .a c c OC ccu cCcC"o-ec,LOCcc c CL tC c c c IO J2 I& Jl -IN T In 1- 

.. *IV* ........................................ 

I I I 

L' 5 IF ........................................ I . h:-! I '.I 4300m~'~~~c000300c ~1O00003000c~c03~~000O30 IO 

I 

I 

..- 

"I ''I 

-* L. 

. 

" 

I') 

u 

C 

3i7 

L. I li ,- C-L c c c c c c "L 'IGC L LI L CI c c c c c cc C oc ' c L c c- OL<C,C'* 1 c 

Y, I L, m u e> 0 c e. c E. ', c c. g c c- L. '- c i3 c c CI CI c. CI c, '- C' c c c c- e- c 0 c 0 c I 0 

I 3 oc 0 c 3 0 3 a r7 c c CI : 0 a " 3 0 0 =. 0 0 0 0 c CI 0 0 0 t; 0 3 0 c 0 0 = 0 4 I 0 

.......................................... I. 

I C' - I N 

I I 

I 

I 

I 

.. 

Ll VI $0 

L 

uw 

>d 

3 

c 

'2 

z 

L 

Ill 

Ill 

XI1 

,u I I 

HI I I- C' I HX I 

u: w I 

0 Y I 

UY I 

z.2 

ow0 

v Y) 'L 

I 

I 

v: 

13 

4 

I IY 1- I 

I I HI w.3 IICIUE 

Il~ll-iH 

0 

-r 

r. 

c 

. 

u- ID 

I PCriaaa na -. 

c, 

U 

I 

rc 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

. I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

, 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

c. 

h e 

'I 

- 

, 

L. - 

C? LA 

r 

LI 

I -r L1 I .u I c( 

I lL 

I l.l 

I L1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

#. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

c c1 

k 

-5 

k 

L'1 

u 

r2 

kr 

La " 

T 

c( 

3 

C' 

(I1 

C 

r 

I 

I- 

? 

- 

0 

-4 

I: 

f 

a 

In 

r 

L' 

vi 

:* 

U. 

0 

v) 

- 

111 

CI 

rl 

m. 

h 

c 

v1 

- 

tn? 

2 

Li 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

e 

b-4 

G 

I.' 

Iw. 

U 

7 

v 

#-I 

L3 

I'' 

In 

L1 

h 

"1 

r 

U. 

UI 

v) 

- 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

b 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

>. 

F 

L 

\ 

LI 

-1 

- 

v 

tI4 

3 

a 

!A 

5 

.l 

tI2 

I. 

U 

< 

2 

-Y 

UI 

U, 

VI 

-r 

c. 

F. 

hl 

r 

u1 

'a 

WJ 

L' 

I0 
U 

h 

U 

W 

4 

w 

0 

w 

E4 

N 

N 

2 

2 

? 

Y) 

1.a 

I. 

10 

I '-1 

IC 

Id 

I 

Ill 

111 

-1 

LI 

m 

.lr 

to 

f 

I * 

I. 

i. * 

I 

xxx 

z I a- .. 

c) 

I * '. 

I IL..-Li."G,->:,<>C 

. ti'......... 

I I H3CL.33.>.7,3L 

IIU 

I I m IIO 

I1 

11 

I1 

I- 1 

141 

I z) I mu L c 'I P - c c r 1-10 ......... I I- I 0 c,c CWLErlC c c -1.a1 u, uf-(7 .-i 

u I I c -.I\" L1 .;I I - ro \I I 4 

I I 

tI I 

:I 1 I 

cc. c c c E : L c c c c LC c c e c c c c c c c c I.C. I - c c c c c c rc c c cc c. L c c c i L c~r c': c c -.-, I u .ntn I 3 

........................... I. 

I "! 

I 01 

N 

v:L 

rl . 

=. hi IY 4 

'7 - c r, - .-I - .... ........ c c .. -I Y .. + .+ 3 . ... 4 .. .4 I-, .. - ... I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

ul 

4 

t+ 

u 

t. 

L 
L 

rn .- I1 

- I aL-ccvccLC cc c~c c C-C*NC cccu cc ccc mc'c c E cccc c.c I c Irn rtn I 1: I 

-1 

I- I 

I I 

'. I m I I . L.8, 

c -12 I .... 

L L 3 - I e c C'C LLL c c c c c C'L L c c L c cc L L LCIC c c c cc c c c L c c c CI L 

. U-r .=Id I 11 

L, 

c, 

I " 

r. 
I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

c c. c CJI ... GICCC 

..I . L,II-U,IF 

'f. I In I .c 21 I rll 

LI 

.- 1 

c Y. 

Nl-l 

.. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

c CI Yi lr p1 

"C 30P 

CPCUO 

CINCCC 

Lo 

It I1 I1 I1 I1 

..... 

W 

N 1- v1 
IT 

I~UOOOG~~~~~NVI~~-~PO~)OVI~~~VI~--~~-~~

lop ...................................... I3U0~0J5O~~0NNCOG0073~OO~~~O~OO~OO~~~O~NI~ 

I +- 61 tn Nd P PO. IP Iw p. I3 

I PD I- IC 

I 

I 

I 

-I -0. 

m . d . c . c . n ... c I\ ... Pt c P . w c . -2 . u . c - ... c c 9 PPI c c m c P ... m cIcl.,w...................-................l . ~r ~n +CP occ ~-=CNNLOCCC-CYICC~ NUC GCC-OC-~CCCC~ g c -1 -lz. I" Nd P r- 13 

iun P Io. id1 WIo 1 

x la 31 

21 

UI 

5 I dll 

I~~~J~o~~~~Ncc~~'~~~o~

dit-L.'....................................I . ~~IU+~~C~-~~ON~C?ON?N~--N~~~-~~O~~~~=

I-. I-. 

P I9 

I- I cIn VI h UI 10. 

C I h(0 I I 

I 

I 

I 

ir 

I Our c .-+VI v c u u d c m tn rp v I\'O v v1 C'P r c c.l v ma m P P c c c v CI + I a Idrn....................................~ . I xa-~o~c~~uc u~mccn~~~c~mco~~c~~~c~o~u~a~m

IC 

I UIJ P-Jlrr) 01 -, NO. N4N0IVI *I- Y3D I h IL I 10 17 I 

IC 

U' 

IS 

I ZC~OC~~VIVI F IN 

......................................... 

I 3 -x o a o o Y I so N \c P o v N m -3 NO -"I o to u) 04 o o 3 m N N m J o I * It-LII .Y u U. 9 *> r c ...m I3 Yl -1- 

ww 4 m-l - -l mc- I7 

e 

I L- LI 

I 

I 

a 

3 8 

au I1 

I1 

II 

I1 

I1 

II 

I1 

CI I ZId 

IL U.L. 

cwladz 

L uu UOU 

vu Lz 

eac 

4 c. 

zaa 

oun 

WI I h 

UJ UJ UJ 

>.lZ 

m-m 

mlrlr 

J 

Io-4 

I IWI I I 

I IUI I I I la1 I I I,L' I I 

%NWU I I UX%L.JI I z wai I YW*CS I wal-I I I YUPIUI I 

>run, I I wou I1 

YIIrOIW I u I19 

wuwai I 

I 

I 

I 

vi 

-1 

a 

+I 

.u 

H 

P 

IO 

Ill 

0 

m 

01 

I 

c 

XK 

zz 

U 

u 

I 

r- - 
. 

I1 

II 

c-4.- 

m.4 

m 

a, 

I 

Iu 

U 

I 

r- - 

i 

L., c .1 01 

.. 

v1 

I k- c; c c: " L C' L c c. c P c: " L m c e- c e' c' L L L L c c. L1<' L' c L c c c c c I u ....................................... .. luccc~~ec~cPc'-C!cc:PC'c"~cIccuc.~cI~cIc CICCCCYC c IW 

I 01 n~m m oc, m~?+m ~-f II -I% r4CUrn-J # IC 

1 IN 1 

I 

I 

I 

Oi i E4 1" I ~~J3P~4Q3N3~.CU01~030~~~~,~o~u~:~~o-~~

IN 

141Y.................*..................l. 

m m- IU 

I C' I I - r-mu*rr C, 

Ir- I I e AN-N 4 

II 

I1 

I1 

II 

I1 

I1 

I I v. UI c L I- (r - 9. c CI c c>c c c c \L' c L. c cl-r c c c. o c c c c c c c c c c I N 

. 12-1 ....................................... I I -cc~crs~co ~cc~oc~ou.cccccrccc~ccccc~cccc~c 101 

I I r( P~O>Q n m m-r 13 

I I -N-N 3 Nr I c- IN 

I I -~oo~~~o~~ooo~o~oo~oc~~~o~o~ooo~o

Nrr 

v. 

alaa -. 

VJXX sx 

IUI 

1-1 

IZI 

I1 

IHI 

'6: .a I 

u I-. I 

.E I 

uwu 

. .UZ 

uklu 

.IP 

YICU 

. u1 e =ou L7 

IO 

ua %N 

LS> 

ah 

DW.2 

LO 4 

L.1 vl 3 

G LO 

u u u LI 

zntr 

NILN 

raa 

(D 

N 
0RIG~A.L PAGE Is 

OF POOR QUALITY 

. 

I I ~o=co3U?3~'ic33?' . IZ................ 

I 1H-l33033533.3;05000 

I I 'I? 

IIUI 

iia 

11 

I1 

I1 

I 1-l I 

IHI 

IO ................... I;I~~GCU~~~~~CC~CCC~ 

I c I coca P-C:FICC ooccc 

oc c cc c cc c ccc c c,c*c.oc n~ 

o c c c CI c c c c o c o c o c c CI CI - -- .................... 'n VI 

\I I - 31 I 

l-I I ni I 

c 

CI I 

I1 

LI I I 

.l I I 

UI I 

Jl I 

I 

-1 

41 

WI 

II 

I 

w. I 

21 I el I 

IC, I I 

41 I 

LI 1 

-1 I 'I I 

.AI I 

UI I 

t4IXI 

LlWl 

kb41 

I1 

II 

I1 

II 

II 

I1 

,I 

-I I 

z om 3 

C3NO 

.... a 

2 n 3 0 2 .- c.: D n 3 0 o" 3 .o 0 c c 5 c 

00030 300CJ3" .~c1ocooDco ..................... IVI 

I. 

IN 

IO 

1- 

Ir) 

I L' 

I. 

IN 

1- 

1P 

I ri 

4 

I -3 

I. 

IN 

I* 

I 

IP 

* 

L A

b,;Lc'cP 

7. ...... HCCOCC" .D 

9 * 

c' Yl c- c. 

cr-cr mm 

m 

.... "W T L c 

0' ulc c ..... 

rD .- we rt 

II 

I I C.YIC"~PFC -c r c r-c -J c c PSCC c cr o WONC c c c c cc c c c I P 

I 1 ~QCI-.CndG-CLCfiCCd+CC CWt-DUt -0CCCC C CC C C IN IO 

I\D 

1- 

I I N clr-mo -I 

I I u a2ghl.v ut 

. I4.."...................................1 . DN WJ-m Y) 

r.4 r -I 

N I 4N 

I 

I 

1 

I 

v) 

4 

Io 

l-4 

11111111111l1111t-(111I1w1 I1*1 I 

I I I I I I IU .I 1 I I I I1.01 I I II>,I 

3U 

iiiiii 

I I lill I 

I I I.L, 8 1 

I I IZLI I I IVlCl I 

I dWZ I I 

wwwww 

z27zx 

wwwww 

~ul-luc 

uwvww 

APPENDIX A: 

CELSS Documents Published as NASA Reports 

. 1. Johnson, Emmett J.: Genetic Engineering Possibilities for CELSS: A Bibliography and 

Summary of Techniques. NASA CR-166306. March 1982. 

2. Hornberger. G.M. and Rastetter. E.B.: Sensitivity Analysis as an Aid in Modelling and 

Control of (Poorly-Defined) Ecological Systems. NASA CR-166308. March 1982. 

Plants. NASA CP-2231. May 1982. 

3. Tibbitts. T.W. and Alford. D.K.: Controlled Ecological life Support System: Use of Higher 

4. Mason, R.M. and Carden. J.L.: Controlled Ecological Life Support System: Research and 

5. Moore, B. and MacElroy. R.D.: Controlled Ecological Life Support System: Biological Prob6. Aroeste. H.: Application of Guided Inquiry System Technique (GIST) to Controlled Eco7. Mason, R.M.: CELSS Scenario Analysis: Breakeven Calculation. NASA CR-166319, April 

Development Guidelines. NASA CP-2232. May 1982. 

lems. NASA CP-2233. May 1982. 

logical Life Support Systems (CELSS). NASA CR-166312, January 1982. 

1980. 

8. Hoff. J.E.. Howe. J.M. and Mitchell, C.A.: Nutritional and Cultural Aspects of Plant Species 

Selection for a Controlled Ecological Life Support System. NASA CR-166324. March 1982. 

9. Averner. M.: An Approach to the Mathematical Modelling of a Controlled Ecological Life 

Support System. NASA CR-166331. August 1981. 

10. Maguire. B.: Literature Review of Human Carried Microbes' Interaction with Plants. NASA 

CR-166330. August 1980. 

11. Howe. J.M. and Hoff. J.E.: Plant Diversity to Support Humans in a CELSS Ground-Based 

Demonstrator. NASA CR-166357, June 1982. 

12. Young, G.: A Design Methodology for Nonlinear Systems Containing Parameter Uncertainty: Application to Nonlinear Controller Design. NASA CR-166358, May 1982. 

13. Karel. M.: Evaluation of Engineering Foods for Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems 

(CELSS). NASA CR-166359. June 1982. 

14. Stahr. J.D.. Auslander. D.M., Spear, R.C. and Young. G.E.: An Approach to the Preliminary Evaluation of Closed-Ecological Life Support System (CELSS) Scenarios and Control 

. Strategies. NASA CR-166368. July 1982. 

* 

, 15. Radmer. R., Ollinger. 0.. Venables. A. and Fernandez, E.: Algal Culture Studies Related 

to a Closed Ecological Life Support System (CELSS). NASA CR-166375. July 1982. 

16. Auslander. D.M., Spear, R.C. and Young, G.E.: Application of Control Theory to Dynamic 

Systems Simulation. NASA CR-166383. August 1982. 

131 
17. Fong. F. and Funkhouser. E.A.: Air Pollutant Production by Algal Cell Cultures. NASA 

CR-166384. August 1982. 

18. Ballou. E. V.: Mineral Separation and Recycle in a Controlled Ecological Life Support 

System (CELSS). NASA CR-166388. March 1982. 

System: First Principal Investigators Meeting. NASA CP-2247. December 1982. 

20. Carden. J. L. and Browner, R.: Preparation and Analysis of Standardized Waste Samples 

for Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS). NASA CR-166392. August 1982. 

21. Huffaker. R. C.. Rains, D. W. and Qualset. C. 0.: Utilization of Urea, Ammonia, Nitrite, 

and Nitrate by Crop Plants in a Controlled Ecological Life Support System (CELSS). 

N AS A- C R 1 664 1 7, 0 c t o b e r 1 9 8 2. 

19. Moore, B.. Ill. Wharton, R. A.. Jr.. and MacElroy. R.D.: Controlled Ecological Life Support 

22. Gustan, E. and Vinopal. T.: Controlled Ecological Life Support System: Transportation 

Analysis. NASA CR-166420. November 1982. 

23. Raper, C. David, Jr.: Plant Growth in Controlled Environments in Response to Character24. Wydeven. T.: Composition and Analysis of a Model Waste for a CELSS. NASA Technical 

25. Averner. M.. Karel, M., and Radmer. R.: Problems Associated with the use of Algae in 

istics of Nutrient Solutions. NASA CR-166431. November 1982. 

Memorandum 84368. September 1983. 

Bioregenerative Life Support Systems. NASA CR-166615. November 1984. 

26. Radmer, R.. Behrens. P., Fernandez. E., Ollinger. 0.. Howell, C., Venables. A.. Huggins. D. 

and Gladue. R.: Algal Culture Studies Related to a Closed Ecological Life Support System 

(CELSS). NASA CR-177322. October 1984. 

Flight Experiments. NASA CR-177323. November 1984. 

27. Wheeler, R. and Tibbitts. T.: Controlled Ecological Life Support System: Higher Plant 

28. Auslander. D.. Spear, R.. Babcock. P. and Nadel. M.: Control and Modeling of a CELSS 

(Controlled Ecological Life Support System). NASA CR-177324. November 1984. 

29. Karel. M. and Kamarei. A.R.: Feasibility of Producing a Range of Food Products from a 

Limited Range of Undifferentiated Major Food Components. NASA CR-177329. April 1984. 

30. MacElroy. R.D., Smernoff, D.T., and Klein, H.: Life Support Systems in Space Travel. 

(Topical Session of XXVth COSPAR meeting, Graz. Austria) NASA CP-2378. May 1985. 

31. MacElroy. R.D.. Martello. N.V.. Smernoff. D.T.: Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems: CELSS '85 Workshop, NASA TM-88215. January 1986. 

32. Tibbitts. T.W.:Controlled Environment Life Support System: Calcium-Related Leaf Injuries 

I 

on Plants. NASA CR-177399. March 1986. 

33. Tibbitts. T.W.. Wheeler, R.M.: Controlled Environment Life Support System: Growth 

Studies with Potatoes, NASA CR-177400. March 1986. 

132 
I 

a 

34. Babcock, P.S.: Nonlinear System Controller Design Based on Domain of Attraction: An 

Application to CELSS Analysis and Control, NASA CR-177401. March 1986. 

35. Smernoff, D.T.: Atmosphere Stabilization and Element Recycle in an Experimental MouseAlgal System, NASA CR-177402. March 1986. 

36. Oleson. M.. Olson, R.L.: Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS): Conceptual 

Design Option Study, NASA CR-177421. August 1986. 

. 

133 
NASA CR- 177422 

~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ 

7. Author(s) 

M. Oleson, T. Slavin, F. Liening, R.L. Olson 

-- '. Key Words (Suggested by Author(r1) 

CELSS, Waste processing, supercr it ical water oxidation, wet oxidation, 

incinerat ion, vapor compression dist . catalytic ammonia removal, trade studies 

~~ 

9. Pwforming Organization Name and Address 

Boeing Aerospace Company 

Seattle, Washington 98124 

18. Distribution Statement 

Unclassif Ted - Unlimited 

STAR Category 54 

~ 

3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

6. Performing Organization Code 

86 

SLX 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

'3-1 

10. Work Unit No. 

T6934 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

NAS 2 -1 18 0 6 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Contractor Report 2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

National Aeronautics 14. Sponsoring Agency Code and Space Administration 

Washington, 199-61-12 D.C. 24056 -- 

5. Supplementary Notes 

Robert D. MacElroy, NASA Ames Research Center 

415-6-95-5573 or FTS 8-464-5573 

Point of Contact: MS 239-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035 

6. Abstract 

This report compares parametric data for the following six waste management subsystems, as considered 

for use on the Space Station: 1) dry incineration, 2) wet oxidation, 3) supercritical water oxidation, 4) 

vapor compression distillation, 5) thermoelectric integrated membrane evaporation system, and 6) vapor 

phase catalytic ammonia removal. The parameters selected for comparison are on-orbit weight and volume, 

resupply and return to Earth logistics, power consumption, and heat rejection. 

Trades studies are performed on subsystem parameters derived from the most recent literature. The 

Boeing Engineering Trade Study, (BETS), an environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) trade 

study computer program developed by Boeing Aerospace Company, is used to properly size the subsystems 

under study. The six waste treatment subsystems modeled in this program are sized to process the wastes 

For a 90-day Space Station mission with a crew of eight persons and an emergency supply period of 28 days. 

The resulting subsystem parameters are compared not only on an individual subsystem level but also as part 

of an integrated ECLSS. 

Two factors affect the results of this trade study. One is the level of subsystem development. The 

four basic parameters studied in this report tend to be optimized during the later stages of equipment 

development. Therefore, subsystems in their later stages of development tend to exhibit lower parametric 

values that their earlier models. The other factor is the functional design of the subsystem. Systems designed 

to process a wider variety of wastes and to convert these wastes to more usable byproducts in general have 

higher process rates and therefore tend to be larger, weigh more, consume more power and reject more heat 

than waste treatment systems with lower process rates. These parametric liabilities are only offset when the 

parameters are weighed against the process rates and overall ECLSS mass balance. 

Uncla ss if ied Unclassified 1 133 I I 

'For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 221 61