nolra@ux1.lbl.gov (Arlon Hunt) (03/16/90)
I thank everyone for replying to my previous posting asking for
information on this subject. Several of the replies and a couple
of the Usenet postings recommended G. Harry Stine's column, "The
Alternate View" in this month's _Analog Science Fiction-Science
Fact_ magazine, which addresses this subject (I have not yet read it).
After posting the original request, I got inundated with requests to
forward the original (and alleged) NASA report describing the sex
experiments on the Space Shuttle. Because of this interest, I've
decided to repost the entire report here (which several people sent
me - thanks!). No one, however, sent me the second (and again
alleged) NASA report that I remember seeing posted shortly after this
first one. Enjoy!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 couples 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 ballistic 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 buoyancy 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 pneumatic 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.
***************************************************************************
Is the above posting on a NASA Space Shuttle sex experiment for real?
We have been looking through the descriptions of the non-DOD flights and none
of them seem to fit the description.
Well, if you think about it, if this was for real it had to be a DOD flight.
There were 3 DOD flights after Challenger.
In our search we uncovered the following memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Contractor Report 3490A
University of xxxxxxxx
Introduction
Support for the commonsensical observation that male/female subjects
can conduct normal marital relations in a zero G environment with mechanical
assistance has been deemed feasible based on the experiments outlined in
reports NASW-xxxx, NAS1-xxxx, and NASW-xxxx.
Method
The adaptation of current experiments in artificial eye-hand coordination
through application of neural networks coupled with on going cooperating
redundant wrist manipulators was performed. The basic paradigm involved
attaching each subject to a manipulator and coordinating the motion of
the subjects through a two hidden-layer back-error propagation neural
network. The output of the neural network stage was fed into a backward-
chaining rule based system in order to achieve optimal control of the
manipulators.
Two different configurations were tested. The first setting involved
the application of a single hold manipulator attached via a rigid waist
device. The second configuration, believed to be more stable,
involved attachment via three bands that can be arranged in different
configurations in order to match the local differences of the particular
subjects.
Attachment of the subjects to the harness was achieved through an
electrically excited velcro-like coupling, VELEE-2, see reference NASW- 5641.
This arrangement allowed the subject to experiment with different attachment
points via vocal command to the manipulators' control system.
Conclusion
The effectiveness of the system was validated through twelve experiments.
During the course of these experiments it was determined that the use
of the redundant manipulator allowed for single subject use of the system
as a unisexual device. We believe that this could be of great importance
for long duration flights were the subject can not find a suitable
partner or the availability of a opposite configured SO is limited.tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (03/16/90)
Well, all I can say is that it's a comfort to realize that the American taxpayer isn't the only one getting *CENSORED* by NASA...
dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (03/17/90)
In article <5089@helios.ee.lbl.gov> nolra@ux1.lbl.gov (Arlon Hunt) writes: >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. >... >keep the partners together. This observation lead us to propose the set >of tests known as STS-75 Experiment 8. ^^^^^^ >... >Is the above posting on a NASA Space Shuttle sex experiment for real? Probably not. -- David R. Smith, HP Labs | "It is said that St. Patrick drove the dsmith@hplabs.hp.com | snakes out of Ireland. They were last seen (415) 857-7898 | selling junk bonds." -- Johnny Carson
arie@extro (Markus Arie) (03/19/90)
From article <5089@helios.ee.lbl.gov>, by nolra@ux1.lbl.gov (Arlon Hunt): > I thank everyone for replying to my previous posting asking for > information on this subject. Several of the replies and a couple > of the Usenet postings recommended G. Harry Stine's column, "The > Alternate View" in this month's _Analog Science Fiction-Science > Fact_ magazine, which addresses this subject (I have not yet read it). > > After posting the original request, I got inundated with requests to > forward the original (and alleged) NASA report describing the sex > experiments on the Space Shuttle. Because of this interest, I've > decided to repost the entire report here (which several people sent > me - thanks!). No one, however, sent me the second (and again > alleged) NASA report that I remember seeing posted shortly after this > first one. Enjoy! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > < lots of stuff deleted > > and each experimental run was videotaped for later analysis. ^^^^^^^^^^ < more stuff deleted > > 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 department of psychology got some footage, and it isn't as simple as it seems. The footage they got was mostly of the faces of the participants (with a blacked out portion to avoid id) and stress was evident. There was also a problem with lubrication, as any humidity evaporated, and artificial lubricants were utilised. if you want to check out the footage (about 20 min.) check out the department of psychology, and speak to the prof. that specializes in sex (no pun intended), and they may have it. A search in your library system might be useful. There was also talk about a seperate study being made with more emphasis on mechanical aids ( the russians made a similar study using animals). From a medical point of view there was a lot of concern expressed over the fact that since the shuttle was a closed eco-system, all the sweat and related emissions would disperse throughout, and clogging of the filters may result. By the way, the woman in question didn't concieve, and they are planning future experiments including a planned birth in space by the year 2000 It was rumored that Hugh Hefner was a consultant for the aforementioned.
adams@freezer.it.udel.edu (Christopher Adams) (03/19/90)
The following pun is not intended for the weak of heart or temper. In article <1990Mar19.022336.18266@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> arie@extro (Markus Arie) writes: >There was also talk about a seperate study being made with more emphasis >on mechanical aids Mechanical aids? Is that some sort of computer retro-virus? -- adams@freezer.it.udel.edu OR hamlet@sun.acs.udel.edu ------------------------- ----------------------- "A broken heart in a cast/is hard to fit past/the narrower part of a sleeve And I gave it to you/so now you've got two/and my liver and life are bereaved"
erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (03/19/90)
This is a seriously disturbed and very probably offensive posting. > >In article <1990Mar19.022336.18266@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> arie@extro (Markus Arie) writes: >>There was also talk about a seperate study being made with more emphasis >>on mechanical aids Presumably this means that any single, male astronauts will be using the Robot Arm to give relief massage :-) Inews Sucks! Tony -- Tony Cunningham, Edinburgh University Computing Service. erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk Yuppies think I'm a wino 'cos I seem to have no class, Girls think I'm perverted 'cos I watch them as they pass.
raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) (03/20/90)
In article <1990Mar19.022336.18266@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>, arie@extro (Markus Arie) writes: > > By the way, the woman in question didn't concieve, and they are planning > future experiments including a planned birth in space by the year 2000 Ummm, to inject a note of realism here, according to Jerry Lettvin, physiologist and EE of MIT fame, childbirth in zero-G won't work. Development of the fetus may be gravitotropic, and the menstrual cycle is perturbed to say the least. According to him, (this was before Challenger so I'm not certain if it's still true), every woman in space since the first Russian woman has had a hysterectomy. It seems that her period hit her a couple of *hours* after landing, not her normal time, and the resulting blood loss and shock almost killed her. So let's be careful with our hack statements out there. Sometimes a smiley is appropriate. Not everyone out here knows enough about the subject to tell when our legs are being pulled. Or something else ;-) -- Nico Garcia Designs by Geniuses for use by Idiots eplunix!cirl!raoul@eddie.mit.edu
shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) (03/20/90)
In article <864@eplunix.UUCP> raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) writes:
Ummm, to inject a note of realism here, according to Jerry Lettvin,
physiologist and EE of MIT fame, childbirth in zero-G won't work.
Development of the fetus may be gravitotropic, and the menstrual
cycle is perturbed to say the least. According to him, (this was before
Challenger so I'm not certain if it's still true), every woman in space
since the first Russian woman has had a hysterectomy. It seems that her
period hit her a couple of *hours* after landing, not her normal time,
and the resulting blood loss and shock almost killed her.
This isn't true. Not all women who've flown in space have had
hysterectomies. They usually control the timing of their cycle
with carefully administered oral contraceptives, which schedule
menstruation very well. I've talked with them about this. (Now
you know what women talk about in the restroom. :-)
BTW, although menstrual fluid looks like blood, it isn't. It is rich
in blood, but menstrual flow is not a haemorrhage. She (the
Cosmonaut) may have haemorrhaged but that's not menstruation.
I'd really like to see a reference on this, since part of it directly
contradicts something I heard first-hand.
So let's be careful with our hack statements out there. Sometimes a smiley
is appropriate. Not everyone out here knows enough about the subject to
tell when our legs are being pulled. Or something else ;-)
Obviously.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASAhogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) (03/21/90)
In article <864@eplunix.UUCP> raoul@eplunix.UUCP (Nico Garcia) writes: >Ummm, to inject a note of realism here, according to Jerry Lettvin, >physiologist and EE of MIT fame, childbirth in zero-G won't work. >Development of the fetus may be gravitotropic, and the menstrual >cycle is perturbed to say the least. According to him, (this was before >Challenger so I'm not certain if it's still true), every woman in space >since the first Russian woman has had a hysterectomy. It seems that her >period hit her a couple of *hours* after landing, not her normal time, >and the resulting blood loss and shock almost killed her. Reality^2 check: Valentina Tereshkova (first woman in space, in 1963) later gave birth to two children. In the two books I've glanced at, no mention was made of any problems she experienced upon landing. (For an easy-reading description of Tereshkova's flight, see Oberg's *Red Star in Orbit*.) Women do have problems in space: they don't fit the suits and stations designed for men. But I'd want to see a solid literature reference before I believed the warnings quoted above. --- John Hogg | As engineering projects go, hogg@csri.utoronto.ca | this one has a certain snigger Department of Computer Science | factor. University of Toronto | -- Don Lindsay, CMU