Flickr / CC-licensed: nocklebeast


Right now, astronauts aboard the International Space Station slip on replacement clothing from the orbiting lab's supply hold. When they're starting to stink and need some new underwear, they can count on a Soyuz rocket to deliver a fresh batch. But as astronauts plan for missions farther and farther from Earth -- including asteroids and Mars -- they can't count on laundry supply runs forever.

Luckily, the UMPQUA Research Company is working hard on a solution, as Nasa has commissioned the Oregon-based development firm to build the Advanced Microgravity Compatible Integrated Laundry System. Or a washing machine that works in space.

UMPQUA has already built the microgravity-compatible Single Phase Laundry System. It uses a system of pulsed water jets to clean the clothing, and a microwave assisted vacuum to dry them off. A follow-up tumble cycle uses an array of three air jets -- two to generate a cyclonic effect and a third to blast the undies into a tumble - - to make the laundry soft.

The prototype cosmic laundromat was successfully tested on a KC-135 microgravity simulation flight, letting astronauts wash clothes without liquid water -- which doesn't work so well without gravity. But the company thinks it can be improved, and hopes to reduce water requirements and lower power consumption before Nasa takes it for a spin.

The research corp reckons that the technology would be suited to "deployment on the Lunar and Mars surfaces, and onboard long range transit vehicles." Plus, it has terrestrial applications too, in "isolated military outposts, research stations, naval vessels, research vessels, and commercial ships."

UMPQUA, which typically works with disinfectants and the sort, has recently sent another proposal to Nasa: the Highly Efficient Fecal Waste Incinerator.


  1. How about a garbage bag &amp; some soapy water? The sh*t incinerator is too funny to believe. Too bad you couldn't lean out the porthole and aim for the sun.  

    Dec 4th 2011
  2. "But as astronauts plan for missions father and father from Earth" Shouldn't that be "further and further"?  

    Pete Gilbert
    Dec 9th 2011

    Pete Gilbert
    Dec 9th 2011
  4. Hey Pete. Good spot - what we actually meant was "farther", meaning physical distance. Not "further", meaning metaphorical distance. And obviously not "father", meaning your dad. Thanks.  

    Mark Brown
    Dec 9th 2011

Reply to a comment

Submit »

Latest on