In deepest space, the earth really mustn't move for you

[T_i_B]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1604651,00.html

They should be out-of-this-world experiences. But US experts have warned that sex in space will bring problems not pleasure for men and women heading to the moon and Mars. A panel of scientists has told Nasa interplanetary passion could cause chaos to its latest plans to send humans on long missions.

Cramped in spaceships for years, surrounded by the starry void, astronauts thoughts are bound to turn to romance, states the report, 'Bioastronautics Roadmap: a risk reduction strategy for human exploration of space'.

The resulting close encounters could have profound consequences, it adds. Without supplies of the necessary precautions, zero-gravity romps could lead to zero-gravity pregnancies.

'Pregnancy in space is a real issue,' said one report author, Prof Lawrence Palinkas of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. 'We have to think now about how to deal with sex in space. Astronauts are human. We have no authenticated stories of sex on missions so far, though there have been near things, I suspect.'

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I could use

a reduction in gravity, myself.

[xchrom]

2. i love the idea of no lippo suction.

i know this is off topic -- but 0 gravity appeals on many levels.

[Gildor Inglorion]

3. Very interesting....I'd never thought about it before

Now I'm dying to know if there has been any gay sex and/or masturbation in space. All those Russian and Soviet cosmonauts spending months at a time in orbit...and no religious strictures to get in the way...not that we'll ever know, of course. Thank you for bringing up such a fascinating subject!
:D

[bananas]

12. Of course there's been sex in space.

Astronauts aren't always wearing biosensors.
Like a lot of people, they tend to walk around the house in their underwear when guests aren't around.
Skylab had a shower.
Russia had women in space long before America.
Google "astronaut sex":

http://www.retrofuture.com/sex.html
...
The last time NASA was repeatedly questioned on the matter was in 1992 when married partners Mark Lee and Jan Davis (below) flew together on Space Shuttle mission STS-47.
...
"The topic is really delicate," maintains a highly-placed Russian space expert who wishes to remain anonymous. He claims encounters allegedly took place on two separate Russian space missions.
"It had nothing to with science and experiments," he explains. "Both were absolutely personal cases. That is why they could not be disclosed."
...

http://www.uncarved.org/AAA/sex.html
...
Whilst NASA will only state that the first married couple to go on a mission together were on the space shuttle Endeavour in September 1992, their counterparts in the former Soviet Union are not so bashful. We have discovered that Svetlana Savicka, a Russian cosmonaut, fucked freely in Jaljut 7 as far back as June 1982. Whilst we applaud this, we are saddened by her bosses' response which was just to initiate a plan to conceive the first child in outer space, as if sex was merely for procreation.
...

[NNadir]

4. It's kind of moot. I don't think anyone's going to Mars.

Nor should they.

[bemildred]

5. Yeah, this is babble, media whore babble. nt

[supernova]

6. Why is it babble?

It's a topic worth discussing.

A mission to Mars is more a matter of when, not if. That's a three-year journey with current technology.

It's not realistic to ask astronauts, grown adults, to abstain.

The idea of giving birth without the aid of gravity does give one pause, though.

[bemildred]

7. Ok, it's real deep stuff. nt

[supernova]

8. I didn't say it was "real deep" either

I didn't deserve the :sarcasm:

I did say it's something worth considering if there are those of us who will be living at least part of our lives in space, if not all of our lives.

edit: Unless you're one of the very few who thinks space exploration is a waste of money.

I don't. It's a worthy enterprise for a benevolent superpower, the kind of superpower we should aspire to be.

edit: your, you're :eyes: Not enough coffee.

[NNadir]

9. Space exploration is best done without human beings.

It is a waste of money, generally, to send human beings into space.

Robots generally do it better.

[supernova]

10. Perhaps at this point in time

I would agree with you that we get more useful scientific information out of robots.

However, there is something about humans in space that captures the imagination of the public. You can't escape that part of it. If you want more $$ to fund the unmanned science projects; you will have to put up with the PR and the hype that goes with astronauts.

[NNadir]

11. Under those circumstances it is a WASTE of money.

The imagination of the public leaves a lot to be desired, which accounts for the present state of affairs.

Humanity cannot afford, environmentally, financially or morally to waste huge resources on what are essentially photo-ops.

[supernova]

13. Actually, no it isn't

NASA spent about 15 billion in fiscal year 2003.

The Iraq War has cost $200 Billion.

Which activity do think will return value for money here?

[NNadir]

17. Um, we didn't have the money for the war in Iraq either.

Saying "I wish I used my credit card for something else," doesn't wash.

The human in space program is still a series of rather silly photo-ops. Except for the Hubble repair missions - missions to repair a robot - I cannot think of any human space missions that were worth what they cost. On the other hand, the robotic missions, especially those to the outer planets have achieved far more memorable and spectacular results.

[bananas]

16. Poppycock!

There are huge untapped resources right here on this planet,
and even more will be available to us in space.
For example - there is enough uranium in the oceans to power our nuclear reactors for brazillions of years!
With such an abundance of inexpensive environmentally clean energy,
there is no reason not to have humans exploring and colonizing space.

[NNadir]

18. Sigh...

Although it is undeniably true that nuclear energy is cleaner and safer than other forms of energy, a fact that you acknowledge, and that it is much more abundant than other forms of energy, this is hardly a reason to waste it for the dubious advantage of launching complex life support systems into space.

Recognizing that even though the environmental cost of nuclear power is a pittance compared to the environmental cost of say, gasoline or coal, and that unlike solar power, nuclear power is real, this power is best used wisely. All energy involves risk and cost. This fact may escape many people with their head in the sand, but it is true nonetheless.

The most successful and scientifically rewarding nuclear powered missions, Voyager, Cassini, Galileo, etc have all been robots. It is probable that the scientific results of any of these missions far exceeds anything accomplished by humans in space in the past thirty years.

Most of the scientific results of the human in space program have involved the self-referential study of what happens to humans in space. This is a silly result, especially if there is no other reason to have humans in space.

[SaveElmer]

19. No they don't as a matter of fact...

Robots cannot employ the flexibility that the human mind can. Robots cannot think, they have to be preprogrammed to study conditions that we think they will encounter. If a mission comes across something unexpected (which they all do), another expensive mission needs to be planned. With humans, these types of changes can be made on the spot.

It's not a matter of if it will happen, it's a matter of when. Human exploration of other worlds is inevitable. As it should be!

[bemildred]

14. I consider that it is shallow media babble.

It presumes that astronauts, should there be any, are immature people ignorant of birth control and unable to control or adapt their impulses so as to avoid pregnancy. That is a stupid assertion, IMHO, and the piece appears to me to be far more about selling newspapers than any scientific issue.

We disagree then, I don't know what you want me to do about it.
Have a nice day.
:-)

[supernova]

15. If by "it," you mean that particular article

then I agree with you. That article is nothing more than titilation. You seemed to imply that all discussion of this topic is "babble."

I think how people are going to handle this aspect of life in space is a subject worthy of discussion. I honestly don't know.