@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:wrs@cmu-cs-wb1 (07/23/85)
From: Walter.Smith@cmu-cs-wb1 In one of Heinlein's books, the woman is positioned along the ship's main axis in a comfortable chair, and at the appropriate moment the pilot, who is also the midwife, fires the engines for a second or so using a convenient footswitch. Heinlein, at least, seems to think a rocket motor is a great help to delivery. - Walter Smith wrs@cmu-cs-wb1.arpa [soon to be wb1.cs.cmu.edu] ...!seismo!cmu-cs-k!wrs
@S1-A.ARPA:BRUC@MIT-MC.ARPA (07/24/85)
From: BRUC@MIT-MC.ARPA (Robert E. Bruccoleri) After having helped my wife with the pregnancy and delivery of our two children (one is 2 months old, the other is 2 years old), I found the remarks about pregnancy and birth in zero-G amusing to say the least. There are some misconceptions here. First, Scott Brim is correct about how babies are born; they are squeezed out. The longest phase of labor is nothing more than the uterus contracting with great force at short intervals (every few minutes) using the baby to dilate the cervix to a size large enough to let the baby out (about 4 inches!). The influence of gravity in this process is subtle in that the blood vessels to the uterus are located in the back, so that the weight of the uterus restricts the blood flow when the mother is on her back, and the uterus will not contract so forcefully (and painfully, as it happens) If she stands or merely turns to her side, then the contractions get stronger. In zero-G, this blood flow restriction will not occur, so labor will probably proceed more quickly. Second, during the actual birth, our doctor had my wife ease off pushing when the maximum width of the baby's was emerging. He did this in order to reduce the likelyhood of a tear. A gravity assist at this juncture would not have been appreciated. Third, the process of getting the baby oriented properly appears to be one of fit between the baby's head and the pelvis of the mother, since head down makes optimum use of the abdominal space. With our second child, he kept switching between head down and sideways, although towards the end, he began to spend most of his time sideways. He was moved into the head down position by externally pushing on his head while taking care that his umbilical cord was not getting wrapped about his neck. During the last two weeks in utero, he stayed head down. My wife did notice that he would shift upward a little when she laid down, so gravity does play some role here. An ultrasound imager will definitely be helpful for delivery in space. One final thought: delivery is mighty messy, and a little gravity would help a lot in keeping liquid matter from getting all over the place. Bob Bruccoleri
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/26/85)
Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the fetus (who
can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)?
--
Peter da Silva (the mad Australian)
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (07/26/85)
> Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the fetus (who > can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? > -- > Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) Good question. I'd guess not, since the fetus is sitting in a neutral buoyancy environment at first, and subsequently (the last few months) doesn't have much leg room. The mechanisms that cause the fetus to absorb calcium in large quantities must not depend on gravity. excerc -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
rdp@teddy.UUCP (07/26/85)
In article <319@baylor.UUCP> peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the fetus (who >can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? >-- > Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) > UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter > MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076 Having just gone throught two pregnancies with my wife, rest assured that no fetus that is even slight healthy has a problem with exercise. One of our kids was so active the my wife had a dislocated rib as a result! No, I don't think excersize for the fetus or the neo-natal is a problem. Now, the mess at delivery is another issue...
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (07/29/85)
In article <319@baylor.UUCP> peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the fetus (who >can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? Since the fetus is floating anyway, prior to birth, there would not likely be any effect to being additionally weightless. Cheers, Fred Williams
peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (07/31/85)
> > [ME] > >Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the fetus (who > >can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? > > Having just gone throught two pregnancies with my wife, rest assured that > no fetus that is even slight healthy has a problem with exercise... It was my understanding that you needed a certain kind of excersize in free fall. Am I wrong?
peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (07/31/85)
> > Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the fetus (who > > can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? > > -- > > Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) > Good question. I'd guess not, since the fetus is sitting in a neutral > buoyancy environment at first, and subsequently (the last few months) > doesn't have much leg room. The mechanisms that cause the fetus to > absorb calcium in large quantities must not depend on gravity. > -- > "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac But bouyant and free fall environments aren't quite the same thing. After all, dolphins don't lose calcium [:->].
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (08/01/85)
> > > Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the fetus (who > > > can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? > > > -- > > > Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) > > Good question. I'd guess not, since the fetus is sitting in a neutral > > buoyancy environment at first, and subsequently (the last few months) > > doesn't have much leg room. The mechanisms that cause the fetus to > > absorb calcium in large quantities must not depend on gravity. > > -- > > "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac > > But bouyant and free fall environments aren't quite the same thing. After > all, dolphins don't lose calcium [:->]. Good point. However, dolphins exercise like crazy. Besides is there any difference between buoyant and free fall environments besides orientability? It's possible (just barely) that the body's calcium budget listens to the inner ear, but I guess it doesn't. -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
rdp@teddy.UUCP (08/01/85)
In article <186@kitty.UUCP> peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes: >> > [ME] >> >Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the fetus (who >> >can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? >> >> Having just gone throught two pregnancies with my wife, rest assured that >> no fetus that is even slight healthy has a problem with exercise... > >It was my understanding that you needed a certain kind of excersize in free >fall. Am I wrong? No, you just don't understand what fetuses seem to spend most of their time doing is excersizing. And they don't need gravity to do it!
@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (08/02/85)
From: mcgeer%ucbkim@Berkeley (Rick McGeer) I would imagine that the principle difference between weightless and bouyant environments is the relative density of air and water. Anyone who's gone simming for any period of time can tell you that moving through water is *work*. Rick.
@S1-A.ARPA,@MIT-MC.ARPA:ethan%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (08/02/85)
From: ethan%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (Ethan Vishniac)
Good point. Probably is even more important for a fetus.
Ethanslb@drutx.UUCP (Sue Brezden) (08/05/85)
> Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the > fetus (who can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? > I would be more inclined to worry about the mother. It is hard enough to keep a calcium balance during pregnancy on earth. In space you have two things robbing your calcium: the baby and the lack of gravity. -- Sue Brezden Real World: Room 1B17 Net World: ihnp4!drutx!slb AT&T Information Systems 11900 North Pecos Westminster, Co. 80234 (303)538-3829 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your god may be dead, but mine aren't. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
moose@ames.UUCP (Mary Kaiser) (08/07/85)
> In article <319@baylor.UUCP> peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > >Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the fetus (who > >can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? > > Since the fetus is floating anyway, prior to birth, there would > not likely be any effect to being additionally weightless. > > Cheers, Fred Williams *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR BEST GUESS *** Sorry folks, but neutral buoyancy *ain't* the same as 0-G, especially as far as your internal organs are concerned (see "The Forever Wars"). Personally, I think this little bambino is going to have a lot of trouble in terms of proper fetal develop, since much of bone growth (i.e. calcium layering) is gravity dependent. Ditto for other developmental processes. On earth, a fetus/embryo may be floating, but gravity is still playing an important role in physiological development. COMING SOON......"SPACE MUTANTS!"
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/13/85)
> > Wouldn't the calcium deficiency noted in free fall SERIOUSLY harm the > > fetus (who can't use a treadmill, or would the mother's exercising serve?)? > > > > I would be more inclined to worry about the mother. It is hard > enough to keep a calcium balance during pregnancy on earth. In > space you have two things robbing your calcium: the baby and the > lack of gravity. I was assuming that the mother was taking whatever steps were necessary to maintain her own calcuim balance, including what appears to be necessary excersize. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/13/85)
> processes. On earth, a fetus/embryo may be floating, but gravity is still > playing an important role in physiological development. Anybody remember Niven's "Confinement Asteroid"? -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076