conor@lion.inmos.co.uk (Conor O'Neill) (05/30/91)
OK. This article appeared in sci.space a year ago.
The consensus then (and now) is that IT IS FAKE.
However, it is very funny, so is worth re-posting.
---
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd., UK.
UK: conor@inmos.co.uk US: conor@inmos.com
"It's state-of-the-art" "But it doesn't work!" "That is the state-of-the-art".
(All this from here onwards is copied from May 1990)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I have heard enough of this discussion to post something
that I got off the net last year. I do not remember whether it was
from sci.space.shuttle, sci.space, or rec.humor, and it really does
not matter. I doubt that the below has ever been attempted, and I do
not think that they would really perform the experiment. Even if they
did, I do not think that our nice, friendly democratic government
would allow funding to continue... but I digress. Do not treat the
following as real, and have fun :)
Luwenth the Lewd
---- what was grabbed inserted here :)
The impression I get is that X's in the following mark deletions made
to protect those involved. I couldn't find out what shuttle mission
was involved or who did the research. I also couldn't find the
appendices.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
XXXXXX Experiment 8 Postflight Summary
NASA publication 14-307-1792
by
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this experiment was to prepare for the expected
participation in long-term space based research by husband-wife teams
once the US space station is in place. To this end, the investigators
explored a number of possible approaches to continued marital relations
in the zero-G orbital environment provided by the XXXXXX shuttle
mission.
Our primary conclusion is that satisfactory marital relations are within
the realm of possibility in zero-G, but that many couples would have
difficulty getting used to the approaches we found to be most
satisfactory.
INTRODUCTION
The number of married coubles currently involved in proposals for long-
term projects on the US space station has grown considerably in recent
years. This raises the serious question of how such couples will be
able to carry out normal marital relations without the aid of gravity.
Preliminary studies in the short-term weightless environment provided by
aircraft flying on balistic trajectories were sufficient to demonstrate
that there were problems, but the duration of the zero-G environment on
such flights is too short to reach any satisfactory conclusions.
Similar experiments undertaken in a neutral bouyancy tank were equally
inconclusive because of the awkwardness of the breathing equipment.
The primary conclusion that could be drawn from these early experiments
was that the conventional approach to marital relationships (sometimes
described as the missionary approach) is highly dependent on gravity to
keep the partners together. This observation lead us to propose the set
of tests known as STS-75 Experiment 8.
METHODOLOGY
The co-investigators had exclusive use of the lower deck of the shuttle
XXXXXXXX for 10 intervals of 1 hour each during the orbital portion of
the flight. A resting period of a minimum of 4 hours was included in
the schedule between intervals. During each interval, the investigators
erected a pnumatic sound deadening barrier between the lower deck and
the flight deck (see NASA publication 12-571-3570) and carried out one
run of the experiment.
Each experimental run was planned in advance to test one approach to the
problem. We made extensive use of a number of published sources in our
efforts to find satisfactory solutions see Appendix I), arriving at an
initial list of 20 reasonable solutions. Of these, we used computer
simulation (using the mechanical dynamics simulation package from the
CADSI company) to determine the 10 most promising solutions.
Six solutions utilized mechanical restraints to simulate the effect of
gravity, while the others utilized only the efforts of the experimenters
to solve the problem. Mechanical and unassisted runs were alternated,
and each experimental run was videotaped for later analysis.
Immediately after each run, the experimenters separately recorded their
observations, and then jointly reviewed the videotapes and recorded
joint observations.
The sensitive nature of the videotapes and first-hand observations pre-
cludes a public release of the raw data. The investigators have pre-
pared this paper to summarize their results, and they intend to release
a training videotape for internal NASA use, constructed from selected
segments of the videotapes and additional narrative material.
The following summary is organized in two sections; the first covers the
mechanical solutions, while the second covers the "natural" approaches.
Each solution is described briefly, and then followed by a brief summary
of the result. Some summaries are combined.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1) An elastic belt around the waist of the two partners. The partners
faced each other in the standard or missionary posture.
Entry was difficult and once it was achieved, it was difficult to
maintain. With the belt worn around the hips, entry was easy, but it
was difficult to obtain the necessary thrusting motion; as a result,
this approach was not satisfactory.
2) Elastic belts around the thighs of the two partners. The female's
buttocks were against the groin of the male, with her back against
his chest.
An interesting experiment, but ultimately unsatisfactory because of the
difficulty of obtaining the necessary thrusting motion.
3) An elastic belt binding the thighs of the female to the waist of the
male. The female's buttocks were against the male's groin, while
her knees straddled his chest.
Of the approaches tried with an elastic belt, this was by far the most
satisfactory. Entry was difficult, but after the female discovered how
to lock her toes over the male's thighs, it was found that she could
obtain the necessary thrusting motions. The male found that his role
was unusually passive but pleasant.
One problem both partners noticed with all three elastic belt solutions
was that they reminded the partners of practices sometimes associated
with bondage, a subject that neither found particularly appealing. For
couples who enjoy such associations, however, and especially for those
who routinely enjoy female superior relations, this solution should be
recommended.
4) An inflatable tunnel enclosing and pressing the partners together.
The partners faced each other in the standard missionary posture.
The tunnel enclosed the partners roughly from the knees to waist and
pressed them together with an air pressure of approximately 0.01
standard atmospheres.
Once properly aroused, the uniform pressure obtained from the tunnel was
sufficient to allow fairly normal marital relations, but getting aroused
while in the tunnel was difficult, and once aroused outside the tunnel,
getting in was difficult. This problem made the entire approach largely
unusable.
5) The same inflatable tunnel used in run 4, but enclosing the partners
legs only. The partners faced each other in the missionary
position.
6) The same inflatable tunnel used in run 4, but with the partners in
the posture used for run 2.
Foreplay was satisfactory with both approaches; in the second case, we
found that it could be accomplished inside the tunnel, quite unlike our
experience with run 4. Unfortunately, we were unable to achieve entry
with either approach.
A general disadvantage of the inflatable tunnel approach was that the
tunnel itself tended to get sticky with sweat and other discharges. We
feel that the difficulty of keeping a tunnel clean in zero-G makes these
solutions most unsatisfactory.
7) The standard missionary posture, augmented by having the female hook
her legs around the male's thighs and both partners hug each other.
8) The posture used in run 3, but with the female holding herself
against the male by gripping his buttocks with her heels.
Initially, these were very exciting and promising approaches, but as the
runs approached their climaxes, an unexpected problem arose. One or the
one or the other partner tended to let go, and the hold provided by the
remaining partner was insufficient to allow continued thrusts. We think
that partners with sufficient self-control might be able to use these
positions, but we found them frustrating.
9) The posture used in run 2, but with the male using his hands to hold
the female while the female used her heels to hold the male's thighs.
Most of the responsibility for success rested on the male here, and we
were successful after a series of false starts, but we did not find the
experience to be particularly rewarding.
10) Each partner gripping the other's head between their thighs and
hugging the other's hips with their arms.
This was the only run involving non-procreative marital relations, and it
was included largely because it provided the greatest number of distinct
ways for each partner to hold the other. This 4 points redundant hold
was good enough that we found this solution to be most satisfactory. In
fact, it was more rewarding than analogous postures used in a
gravitational field.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that married couples considering maintaining their marital
relations during a space mission be provided with an elastic belt such
as we used for run 3 (see Appendix II). In addition, we advise that a
training program be developed that recommends the solutions used in runs
3 and 10 and warns against the problems encountered in runs 7 and 8.
We recognize that any attempt by NASA to recommend approaches to marital
relationships will be politically risky, but we feel that, especially in
cases where long missions are planned, thought be given to screening
couples applying to serve on such missions for their ability to accept
or adapt to the solutions used in runs 3 and 10.
---- end of insertion :)
--
rlc4_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu |-----Skaters dream: Board to Death------
rlc4_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu |-Fencing: Two grown people attacking each
connelr@nyssa.cs.orst.edu | other with swords, and you ask for sanity???
---
Conor O'Neill, Software Group, INMOS Ltd., UK.
UK: conor@inmos.co.uk US: conor@inmos.com
"It's state-of-the-art" "But it doesn't work!" "That is the state-of-the-art".