Saturday, May 19, 2007
sex in space...
i cant believe this is only being discussed now... perhaps it took a love triangle to bring it to light. ive wondered for years what the possibilities were that this might happen. after all, if mankind intends to colonize in space and on planets, then sex would eventually be a part of that plan. i think there are a lot of physical issues that should be addressed even before emotional issues are addressed. how possibly would it be without getting strapped into a slumber sack? is conception possible in zero g? what about morning sickness and birthing in zero g? should simulated gravity be tackled first? how feasible would it be for babies to be in a non-child-friendly environment in space? etc, etc... sure theres a lot of emotional things to consider, but thats all a part of life anyway. most of those questions would apply to any long-distance relationship, or even military family for that matter. i dont see much relevance at this point in addressing emotional factors until all other factors have been settled. at the pace nasa is moving, it will be another 50 years before someone is even allowed to masturbate in space...
source:
http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/05/sexdrive_0518
The Uncomfortable Reality of Sex in Space
05.18.07 | 2:00 AM
I picture NASA shifting uncomfortably in its chair, running its fingers under its collar and wondering if it's the only one feeling warm now that sex is in the air.
Or beyond the air, as the case may be.
You see, the space agency is almost 50 years old, and while it likes to think it's a leader in exploring new frontiers, it has yet to shake off the fetters of its childhood when it comes to sex, romance and relationships.
Yet it is starting to talk more publicly about the special considerations associated with long space flights, such as how to deal with illness and even death when you can't just turn around and come home. And sex is on the list for future discussions.
In the past, NASA has not been comfortable talking about sexuality, says science journalist Laura Woodmansee, who encountered resistance while researching her book Sex in Space.
"It's almost as if (retired astronauts) agreed not to talk about sex when they left (NASA)," she says. "And the current ones worry about their jobs and how it would make them look."
Yet as humans begin to spend more time in space and to travel further from Earth, space agencies will need to factor sex into their equations.
"We will have to address crew compatibility, sexuality issues, whether there is a necessity for sexual activity," says David Steitz, NASA senior public affairs officer.
He had the grace to laugh when I interrupted with a "Hell, yeah!"
But I was serious, too. We cannot expect astronauts to spend three years in a spacecraft and not have sex -- of some kind. Probably with each other, and likely in more than one combination.
Sex in space presents a number of challenges beyond tangible matters like zero gravity or awkward enclosures. In fact, the physics should be the least of NASA's concerns.
It's the touchy-feely bit that the agency will need to consider seriously. Blindly applying Earth-bound standards that astronauts cannot follow under space-voyage conditions will only lead to guilt and shame.
What happens if one person in the spaceship makes a romantic overture, only to be rebuffed? What happens if an astronaut in a relationship back home falls in love with another member of the mission? What to do -- send a breakup text message from Mars?
How do you handle love, sex, romance, heartbreak, jealousy, hurt, unrequited longing, crushes, loneliness and twitterpation when you're 18 months away from Earth and perhaps unsure whether you'll make it back?
You cope with it the way you do everything else in space. You rely on your intelligence, your commitment to the common good and your training.
If NASA invites me to take part in discussions about sexual standards in space -- it could happen -- I will suggest sending all candidates into the adult internet for a year.
They don't have to have cybersex or fall in love, but they should participate in different types of adult communities until they become comfortable with the wide range of human sexual relationships. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would gladly volunteer to show astronauts the ropes.
Online, astronauts (and their partners, if they have any) can learn how to deal with sexual situations similar to those they will face in space, with one important difference: an escape hatch.
They can observe and experiment with sex without possession, partnership without monogamy, sexual pleasure without expectation of roses or breakfast.
They can discover group love, bond with a special someone, or both. They can try letting go of jealousy and fear, figure out how to protect themselves from other people's drama, and develop healthy ways to cope with desire, love and rejection.
Some astronauts might discover they are comfortable with polyamory or bisexuality while others might reaffirm their commitment to monogamy. The important thing is that they practice living and working respectfully with others regardless of who is sleeping with whom.
We need to acknowledge that humans will bring our sexuality with us into space and that includes all the complexities of relationships as well as the relatively simple matter of bodies. NASA cannot avoid confronting those complexities, especially now that the public knows even astronauts sometimes confuse obsession with love.
"How long can humans go without sex?" is not the right question.
I don't care if you have a same-sex crew of great-grandparents who have never had a flicker of sexual desire in their entire lives. Lock a group of humans into a ship, sail them through space and time, and it won't take long for that deep, ancient need for touch and intimacy to surface.
For now, Steitz says, NASA is still trying to work out how to keep crewmembers physically healthy on an interplanetary journey.
"Obviously mental health is as important as the physical. The difference is, it's easier to develop physical standards for human bodies than for psychological or behavioral well-being," he says. "I can tell you how much bone mass you have, what your muscle strength is, how much oxygen you're breathing. But it's much harder to try to figure out 'are you happy?'"
Once they develop standards for maintaining physical health, he says, they can start designing a spacecraft. Only then do the less technical matters come to the fore.
Like where to stow the chocolate.
See you next Friday,
Regina Lynn
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label space. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
back-words... space colonization...
Monday, December 11, 2006
space colonization...
ok, so its an old article, but after watching the night launch last night i had to go do some digging online for info which, in a very round about way, led me to this. i think its great because so many times ppl say something and dont follow thru and clearly with everything going on lately, ppl are following thru. to that, i say bravo and offer kudos.
one of my childhood dreams was space colonization and it delights me to no end that this dream hasnt joined the pile of shattered dreams... yet.
NASA's Griffin: 'Humans Will Colonize the Solar System'
Sunday, September 25, 2005; Page B07
NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin met last week with reporters and editors at The Post. Here are some of the questions and answers:
What can humans learn in space that robots couldn't?
The thing that you can learn with humans in scientific enterprises are all of the things that you didn't send the robot to find out. With a human you're doing the opportunistic plan, the uncorrelated observation. You know, you see this over here and that over there, and you put them together.
When you know what question you want to ask and what measurement you want to make, it's almost always to your advantage to do that robotically or, at most, use the human to put the thing in place. There's no question about it. When you don't know what you don't know, when you don't know what the questions are, we do very poorly at attempting to figure out what those questions ought to be by using robots.
But the goal isn't just scientific exploration . . . it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time. . . . In the long run a single-planet species will not survive. We have ample evidence of that . . . [Species have] been wiped out in mass extinctions on an average of every 30 million years.
But are there examples of multiple-planet species?
We don't know of any other species anywhere, but while I cannot say that multiple-planet species will survive, I think I can prove to you from our own geologic record that single-planet species don't.
Now, you know, in the sense that a chicken is just an egg's way of laying another egg, one of our purposes is to survive and thrive and spread humankind. I think that's worth doing. There will be another mass-extinction event. If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it.
So you're actually talking about a community on Mars that has a large enough population and can sustain itself for thousands of years anticipating this event?
Not necessarily. I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids. We've got places that humans will go, not in our lifetime, but they will go there.
Is it important that Americans lead the way?
To me it's important because I like the United States, and because I know -- I don't know the date -- but I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond. And it is important for me that humans who carry -- I'll characterize it as Western values -- are there with them.
You know, I think we know the kind of society we would get if you, for example, carry Soviet values. That means you want a gulag on Mars. Is that what you're looking for?
Given the laws of physics and the distances involved, where is the place "beyond the solar system" we could go?
Well, I mean, there are other stars in our near neighborhood . . . four light-years away . . . 12 light-years away.
Is it a concern that you believe that others will get there first?
I don't know that it's a concern that others get there first. What does concern me is that where other people go, the United States must also be. I'm not trying to stomp other people into the ground, but I would like to be assured that wherever the frontier of human civilization is, that people from America are there as well. . . . It should be viewed as an investment in carrying American culture, American values.
Can the United States afford such a program?
The amount we spend on space exploration is seven-tenths of one percent of the budget, not even. Your tax bill, if you're an average citizen, is around $8,000 per year. Of that, $55 is spent on space. So when you say, why don't we concentrate on the problems of today, in terms of how we actually spend our money, that is precisely what we're doing, to a level higher than 99 percent.
Americans seem to demand that space travel be absolutely safe, that no one will die. Is that unrealistic?
Incredibly so . . . It is a risky activity.
And people in this country don't seem prepared to accept that?
Correct. Now, part of the country doesn't seem prepared to accept it because generations of upper-level NASA managers have tried to characterize the shuttle as routine and safe, and it is not routine, and other than in the sense that a mountain climber would use the word, it's not safe. Mountain climbing is an activity that's riskier than flying on the shuttle. If we elect to go climb Mount Everest, the odds are 10 percent we're going to die. That's riskier than getting on board the shuttle. Okay? But most other things are not.
We want to learn how to make it safe. We believe that one day we can . . . but it is like the early days of airplane flight. That is what it is.
the core of this was summed up as:
"...the goal isn't just scientific exploration... it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time. . . . In the long run a single-planet species will not survive... If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it... I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids... I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond."
in a wikipedia article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization
space colonization...
ok, so its an old article, but after watching the night launch last night i had to go do some digging online for info which, in a very round about way, led me to this. i think its great because so many times ppl say something and dont follow thru and clearly with everything going on lately, ppl are following thru. to that, i say bravo and offer kudos.
one of my childhood dreams was space colonization and it delights me to no end that this dream hasnt joined the pile of shattered dreams... yet.
NASA's Griffin: 'Humans Will Colonize the Solar System'
Sunday, September 25, 2005; Page B07
NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin met last week with reporters and editors at The Post. Here are some of the questions and answers:
What can humans learn in space that robots couldn't?
The thing that you can learn with humans in scientific enterprises are all of the things that you didn't send the robot to find out. With a human you're doing the opportunistic plan, the uncorrelated observation. You know, you see this over here and that over there, and you put them together.
When you know what question you want to ask and what measurement you want to make, it's almost always to your advantage to do that robotically or, at most, use the human to put the thing in place. There's no question about it. When you don't know what you don't know, when you don't know what the questions are, we do very poorly at attempting to figure out what those questions ought to be by using robots.
But the goal isn't just scientific exploration . . . it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time. . . . In the long run a single-planet species will not survive. We have ample evidence of that . . . [Species have] been wiped out in mass extinctions on an average of every 30 million years.
But are there examples of multiple-planet species?
We don't know of any other species anywhere, but while I cannot say that multiple-planet species will survive, I think I can prove to you from our own geologic record that single-planet species don't.
Now, you know, in the sense that a chicken is just an egg's way of laying another egg, one of our purposes is to survive and thrive and spread humankind. I think that's worth doing. There will be another mass-extinction event. If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it.
So you're actually talking about a community on Mars that has a large enough population and can sustain itself for thousands of years anticipating this event?
Not necessarily. I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids. We've got places that humans will go, not in our lifetime, but they will go there.
Is it important that Americans lead the way?
To me it's important because I like the United States, and because I know -- I don't know the date -- but I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond. And it is important for me that humans who carry -- I'll characterize it as Western values -- are there with them.
You know, I think we know the kind of society we would get if you, for example, carry Soviet values. That means you want a gulag on Mars. Is that what you're looking for?
Given the laws of physics and the distances involved, where is the place "beyond the solar system" we could go?
Well, I mean, there are other stars in our near neighborhood . . . four light-years away . . . 12 light-years away.
Is it a concern that you believe that others will get there first?
I don't know that it's a concern that others get there first. What does concern me is that where other people go, the United States must also be. I'm not trying to stomp other people into the ground, but I would like to be assured that wherever the frontier of human civilization is, that people from America are there as well. . . . It should be viewed as an investment in carrying American culture, American values.
Can the United States afford such a program?
The amount we spend on space exploration is seven-tenths of one percent of the budget, not even. Your tax bill, if you're an average citizen, is around $8,000 per year. Of that, $55 is spent on space. So when you say, why don't we concentrate on the problems of today, in terms of how we actually spend our money, that is precisely what we're doing, to a level higher than 99 percent.
Americans seem to demand that space travel be absolutely safe, that no one will die. Is that unrealistic?
Incredibly so . . . It is a risky activity.
And people in this country don't seem prepared to accept that?
Correct. Now, part of the country doesn't seem prepared to accept it because generations of upper-level NASA managers have tried to characterize the shuttle as routine and safe, and it is not routine, and other than in the sense that a mountain climber would use the word, it's not safe. Mountain climbing is an activity that's riskier than flying on the shuttle. If we elect to go climb Mount Everest, the odds are 10 percent we're going to die. That's riskier than getting on board the shuttle. Okay? But most other things are not.
We want to learn how to make it safe. We believe that one day we can . . . but it is like the early days of airplane flight. That is what it is.
the core of this was summed up as:
"...the goal isn't just scientific exploration... it's also about extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar system as we go forward in time. . . . In the long run a single-planet species will not survive... If we humans want to survive for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely conceivable. We're in the infancy of it... I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making habitats on asteroids... I know that humans will colonize the solar system and one day go beyond."
in a wikipedia article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
