noe@sunc6.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) (05/26/91)
Follow-ups redirected to sci.space.shuttle. In a previous article I claimed that NASA's position regarding whether or not a specific married couple, both astronauts, engaged in sexual activity while together on the space shuttle would be "it's none of our business." In article <19743@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >But the scientific data and its use on long space fights >would be invalueable. On the contrary, this "scientific data" would not be valuable, at least not for the forseeable future. Presently the only crewed U.S. space vehicle is the shuttle, which is absolutely limited to less than two weeks on orbit. I'm doubtful that NASA will be operating any longer duration crewed space vehicles within the next 20 years, although there is still a slim possibility of a continuously occupied space station toward the end of that time frame. What did you have in mind? Multigenerational voyages to the stars? Not in the next 100 years, most likely "never." Until someone discovers warp drive there's little purpose in it. >Again the mechanics are important since a simple thing as a spilt >glass of milk (I know there are glasses up there but I'm sure can >imagine the situation) could waft droplets throughout the ship. I think you overestimate the potential problems. The mechanics of sex underwater are difficult, but only because of breathing equipment which tends to get in the way, and safety considerations peculiar to the underwater environment. The neutral buoyancy, which closely resembles the microgravity environment, makes sex considerably easier so far as mechanics are concerned. Issues of containment of liquids are also not difficult to solve. These issues are certainly not as complex or serious as those involving human ingestion and elimination. Certainly no formal "experimentation" is required. There are many more serious and challenging problems of human presence in the microgravity environment. -- Roger Noe roger-noe@uiuc.edu Department of Computer Science noe@cs.uiuc.edu University of Illinois 40:06:39 N. 88:13:41 W. Urbana, IL 61801 USA
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/27/91)
In article <283F8D95.400F@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> noe@sunc6.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes: >On the contrary, this "scientific data" would not be valuable, at least >not for the forseeable future. Presently the only crewed U.S. space vehicle >is the shuttle, which is absolutely limited to less than two weeks on orbit. >I'm doubtful that NASA will be operating any longer duration crewed space >vehicles within the next 20 years, although there is still a slim possibility >of a continuously occupied space station toward the end of that time frame. > No. In fact, Endeavour (OV-105) is built for long duration flights. It can stay in orbit for almost twice the two-week limit you mentioned. Its first flight is scheduled for next year. Columbia (OV-101) will be retrofited to stay in orbit almost as long. Frank Crary
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/27/91)
In article <283F8D95.400F@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> noe@sunc6.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes:
+
+What did you have in mind? Multigenerational voyages to the stars? Not in
+the next 100 years, most likely "never." Until someone discovers warp drive
+there's little purpose in it.
No, I had in mind 'non-monastic' long(3mo-1y) intra-solar system
flights. But then may be your moral fiber is showing.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edulm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L) (05/29/91)
In <1991May27.015128.29378@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >In article <283F8D95.400F@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> noe@sunc6.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes: >>On the contrary, this "scientific data" would not be valuable, at least >>not for the forseeable future. Presently the only crewed U.S. space vehicle Sure as hell make the trip more interesting though! :-> There's a thought : mixed gender flights aren't so uncommon these days : how do we know the experiment hasn't already taken place? (Behind our backs) -- KRAKEN...............................alias.......................L McIlhoney Year 2, Dept. of Electronic Engineering E-mail LM89@UK.AC.SOTON.ECS University of Southampton ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (05/29/91)
In article <7870@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, lm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L) writes: > >>In article <283F8D95.400F@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> noe@sunc6.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes: >>>On the contrary, this "scientific data" would not be valuable, at least >>>not for the forseeable future. Presently the only crewed U.S. space vehicle > >Sure as hell make the trip more interesting though! :-> > >There's a thought : mixed gender flights aren't so uncommon these >days : how do we know the experiment hasn't already taken place? >(Behind our backs) Another space Penthouse speculation starts again.... I'll give you two reasons: No privacy, and the fact everyone is so !@#$ busy running around for a mission they wouldn't be able to find the time, unless both consulting adults decided NOT to sleep but instead, experiment. And the next day, when the experiment is botched because neither party caught their 6 hours of rest...guess who which two will NEVER ever make a flight again? Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs -- > SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/30/91)
In article <7870@ecs.soton.ac.uk> lm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L) writes: >There's a thought : mixed gender flights aren't so uncommon these >days : how do we know the experiment hasn't already taken place? >(Behind our backs) > We can be reasonably sure that no one has had sex in orbit due to the type of spacecraft that women have flown on. There are, to date, only 2: The soviet Salyut 7 (could be 6, I don't remember) and the Space Shuttle. I am ignoring the Vostok capsule since this was a one-man craft. There is/was no real privacy on either of there crafts. All I can think of is the airlock on the shuttle and the Soyuz craft docked to the soviet space station. If anyone had tried to have sex in either of these places, EVERYONE on board would have known about it (e.g. would have seen them go in, for no other reason, FELT the vibrations (at least on Salyut 7, which can be shook by jumping up and down.) possible heard them, and seen them come out.) As a result, the entire crew would have had to have keep quiet. This was 3 other people in the case of the soviets. For the US, it depends on the particular shuttle mission. I really doubt that this would have remained a secret. Frank Crary
Dale@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Dale Gee) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May30.013526.20485@agate.berkeley.edu> fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: >In article <7870@ecs.soton.ac.uk> lm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L) writes: >>There's a thought : mixed gender flights aren't so uncommon these >>days : how do we know the experiment hasn't already taken place? >>(Behind our backs) >> >We can be reasonably sure that no one has had sex in orbit due to the type >of spacecraft that women have flown on. There are, to date, only 2: The >soviet Salyut 7 (could be 6, I don't remember) and the Space Shuttle. >I am ignoring the Vostok capsule since this was a one-man craft. There >is/was no real privacy on either of there crafts. All I can think of is >the airlock on the shuttle and the Soyuz craft docked to the soviet space >station. If anyone had tried to have sex in either of these places, EVERYONE >on board would have known about it (e.g. would have seen them go in, for no >other reason, FELT the vibrations (at least on Salyut 7, which can be shook >by jumping up and down.) possible heard them, and seen them come out.) As >a result, the entire crew would have had to have keep quiet. This was >3 other people in the case of the soviets. For the US, it depends on the >particular shuttle mission. I really doubt that this would have remained >a secret. > > Frank Crary I am sure that the astronauts could keep this secret. They all security clearances. Plus do we know what kind of relationship the astronauts have with each other. Sex in the work place is not unheard of. The have classified missions where the general public dosn't know what took place during the flight. I think they had more than enough chances to do the research. I doubt they did. At this moment in NASA's life they couldn't afford to have something like that leak. Dale
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.141830.7256@sol.cs.wmich.edu> Dale@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Dale Gee) writes: >I am sure that the astronauts could keep this secret... Secret from the world, maybe, although I have my doubts. Secret from NASA, no chance... and NASA is very sensitive to any possibility of bad publicity. Trying anything like that would kill your chances of ever flying again stone cold dead; astronauts' careers have been effectively ended before by lesser transgressions. -- "We're thinking about upgrading from | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 to SunOS 3.5." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.141830.7256@sol.cs.wmich.edu>, Dale@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Dale Gee) writes: > I am sure that the astronauts could keep this secret. They all security > clearances. Plus do we know what kind of relationship the astronauts > have with each other. Sex in the work place is not unheard of. > The have classified missions where the general public dosn't know what > took place during the flight. I think they had more than enough > chances to do the research. I doubt they did. At this moment in > NASA's life they couldn't afford to have something like that leak. > They would have to keep the ground controllers quiet as well. I work with the shuttle telemetry system every day. Beleive me, if "the ship was a shakin' " the ground would most likely see the data showing it before the crew realized it. I'm talking accelormeters, door positions, switch positions, pressures, tempatures.. cameras.... Maybe they could get SEX in space added as a DTO - Development Test Objective....... :) The Shuttle has about 10,000 different measurements that are be transmitted to earth. Depending on the mission phase 3000-5000 are active. -- Mike Kent - Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC 2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-3791 KENT@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Dale@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Dale Gee) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.124803.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >In article <1991May30.141830.7256@sol.cs.wmich.edu>, Dale@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Dale Gee) writes: > >> I am sure that the astronauts could keep this secret. They all security >> clearances. Plus do we know what kind of relationship the astronauts >> have with each other. Sex in the work place is not unheard of. >> The have classified missions where the general public dosn't know what >> took place during the flight. I think they had more than enough >> chances to do the research. I doubt they did. At this moment in >> NASA's life they couldn't afford to have something like that leak. >> > >They would have to keep the ground controllers quiet as well. I work with the >shuttle telemetry system every day. Beleive me, if "the ship was a shakin' " >the ground would most likely see the data showing it before the crew realized >it. I'm talking accelormeters, door positions, switch positions, pressures, >tempatures.. cameras.... > >Maybe they could get SEX in space added as a DTO - Development Test >Objective....... :) MIke: How could anything shake? They would be supspended in weightlessness? To be honest I didn't think that sex could shake anything that big. Oh well, who knows. I will tell you this much if they ever need test subjects for this, I would be happy to sign up. (things we will do for a ride into space)Dale > >The Shuttle has about 10,000 different measurements that are be transmitted >to earth. Depending on the mission phase 3000-5000 are active. > >-- > >Mike Kent - Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC > 2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-3791 > KENT@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
echeverr@aludra.usc.edu (The Black Sheep) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.170044.2116@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1991May30.141830.7256@sol.cs.wmich.edu> Dale@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Dale Gee) writes: >>I am sure that the astronauts could keep this secret... > >Secret from the world, maybe, although I have my doubts. Secret from NASA, >no chance... and NASA is very sensitive to any possibility of bad publicity. >Trying anything like that would kill your chances of ever flying again stone >cold dead; astronauts' careers have been effectively ended before by lesser >transgressions. Maybe the astronauts could keep a secret from NASA? -- =============================================================================== Ron A Echeverri, | "God is a necessary invention. If there is The Black Sheep | no god, we would have to invent Him." BSAE 1994 Univ of So California | - Voltaire
wab@worf.Rational.COM (Bill Baker) (06/04/91)
In article <1991May30.141830.7256@sol.cs.wmich.edu> Dale@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Dale Gee) writes: >I am sure that the astronauts could keep this secret. They all security >clearances. Plus do we know what kind of relationship the astronauts >have with each other. Sex in the work place is not unheard of. >The have classified missions where the general public dosn't know what >took place during the flight. I think they had more than enough >chances to do the research. I doubt they did. At this moment in >NASA's life they couldn't afford to have something like that leak. Haven't all the classified missions been stag affairs? Theoretically, of course, this doesn't abrogate the possibility, but being realistic....