I have Zach and Kelly Weinersmith’s book, A City on Mars, on order. It hasn’t arrived yet, but I’m seeing excerpts all over the place that let me know I’m going to find this one interesting. It asks all the important questions!
Can you have sex in space?
Astronauts have confirmed over the past few decades that in space, the flesh is willing. But truth be told, we don’t even know if you can actually do the fun part of making space kids. While the moon and Mars provide some gravity, a vast majority of data on space physiology comes from orbital space stations, where astronauts hang in constant free fall. Weightlessness is ideal for physics problems but not for intercourse; a nudge toward you will send you flying backward with equal and opposite momentum. Without the familiar frame of reference provided by Earth’s gravity, concepts like “top” and “bottom” are without physical meaning. All of this will make the orientationless mambo awkward. The space popularizers James and Alcestis Oberg wrote in 1986 that those who attempt the act “may thrash around helplessly like beached flounders until they meet up with a wall they can smash into.”
Assuming this is undesirable, you’ll want something that keeps people together. The engineer and futurist Thomas Heppenheimer called for an “unchastity belt.” Another concept, pitched by Samuel Coniglio, a former vice president of the Space Tourism Society, is the “snuggle tunnel.” There’s also Vanna Bonta’s 2suit, which would keep a weightless couple connected via Velcro straps.
I don’t know…those options sound like they could be experimented with here on Earth, so why go to space?
After thrashing around helplessly like beached flounders, you may work up an appetite. What to do next? Have you considered space cannibalism?
Professor, prolific author, and triathlete, Dr. Erik Seedhouse wrote an analysis of space cannibalism in “Survival and Sacrifice in Mars Exploration.” We don’t know Mr. Seedhouse personally, and he didn’t respond to our email, but we will note that his book’s index contains precisely one entry on “behavioral challenges,” a very important topic, but five entries on the gustatory mode of crew integration.
Seedhouse asks: “Imagine you’re stranded on the Red Planet with three crewmembers. You have plenty of life-support consumables but only sufficient food to last one person until the rescue party arrives. What do you do?… One day, while brewing coffee for breakfast, you realize there are three chunks of protein-packed meat living right next to you.”
He argues that the largest people should sacrifice themselves first, since they both consume and provide the most food. We don’t know where Seedhouse would fall in the buffet line because we couldn’t find his height and weight online, and honestly we’re scared to ask.
Mostly because his book includes a weirdly detailed look at how to butcher Homo sapiens. Also, on page 144, the reader will find a photo of ten astronauts floating happily in space, with the caption: “In the wrong circumstances, a spacecraft is a platform full of hungry people surrounded by temptation. Is it wrong to waste such a neatly packaged meal?”
Is one of the space people Elon Musk? I think that would influence my answer. He doesn’t look particularly appetizing, so this would be a question of performing a distasteful service that would benefit all of humankind.
I’ll let you know when my copy of the book arrives. The first thing I’ll be looking for in the index is “spiders,” because I think they’d thrive particularly well in low-G environments. Is the city on Mars specifically for spiders?
Sex in space might be a logistical problem, but I suspect the depression of being rejected for it isn’t much different than here on earth. Which would mean my love life would be exactly the same.
Way back when I worked on modelling the web-construction methods of Araneus diadematus, one of our experiments was turning the frame containing the web upside-down while the occupant was in the process of building a web. If it was in the last stage – building the sticky spiral – it would generally continue uninterrupted, IIRC. Earlier on, it would halt, wait a while, then resume, generally producing a functional web.
Zach & Kelly Weinersmith have both a good grasp of science and a great , original sense of humor. I have bought their previous books and donated them to the local library so others can enjoy them.
They look at reality from unexpected angles, and -the hardest of all- are reliably funny. Not “SNL funny” but the real thing (provided your sense of humor is as twisted as mine)..
Seedhouse’s options for surviving until the rescue party arrives remind me very much of the situation in Andy Weir’s novel The Martian, except it was the rescue party having to consider their options if their resupply mission missed the rendezvous. It was gruesome enough to make you wish you were instead living on Mars eating potatoes grown in your own shit.
Scientific American for October 2023 has an article Why We’ll Never Live in Space by Sarah Scoles. It details the medical, technological and financial problems facing any attempt at significant human settlement off-Earth. These are certainly considerable, but my hunch is that at any rate in the case of the moon, geopolitical rivalry will lead at least to “scientific” bases similar to those several countries maintain on Antarctica. I put the “scientific” in scare-quotes because it’s clear in the Antarctic case that while there is a lot of important science being done, a number of powers consider it important to establish a sustained presence in case the Antarctic Treaty System breaks down, or is modified to allow national claims. Similar issues apply to the moon. Specifically, both the USA and China have the declared intention of establishing lunar bases in the near future. Advances in robotics and telepresence may make the presence of people unnecessary for scientific purposes, but I think it will still be judged important for political ones.
Eat the rich?
Spiders in space — and specifically, weightless webs — is an experiment that’s been done a few times already.
I’m reminded of when NASA finally got around to sending a geologist to the moon, he immediately found samples that helped prove the origin of the moon itself. Samples that remote presence via robotic probes and even test pilot astronauts overlooked.
There are just some things humans are better at. Lab work being one thing that automation cannot yet replace.
But, that isn’t living in space, it’s an exploratory mission with a temporary stay, as 1G organisms don’t really fare all that well in microgravity. Add in that whole no air thing, radiation, micrometeors and well, larger meteors, it’s more like trying to live full time downrange in a shooting gallery.
Of course, we could build larger space stations with spin for pseudogravity. Just to see what entertainingly large holes get punched in them by meteors and space junk…
If The Angry Red Planet was true, then yes.
Doesn’t being in space lower the blood pressure, rendering getting an erection difficult?
… the moon and Mars provide some gravity…
Lunar sex in particular sounds close to ideal, at least for the uninhibited: at 1/6 terrestrial weight (25 lbs for a 150-lb person), almost every individual would be able to pick up, spin around, and position almost every partner, but only the most vigorous upward thrusts would lead to decoupling (tight embraces are generally recommended in most cases anyhow).
I believe An Pornograph was filmed aboard the Vomit Comet, thus achieving the closest thing to weightless sex (sex in free fall) short of actual ISS-based Interpersonal Grumbulent Unpleasantness.
I would encourage Googling, but that just sounds rude.
Louis
But it appears they missed the most obvious solution to the problem of weightless sex: Duct tape. (See, e.g., Mary Doria Russell, The Sparrow (1995)). And thanks to my dubious… client base, including some photographers who do some “glamour” work to support their less-lucrative fine-art photography… there appear to be analogous products modelled on duct tape with adhesives optimized for minimal discomfort in removal from bare skin. Which leads into disturbing questions about “alternative lifestyle choices” in space.
Here. Have some brain bleach. It won’t help, but the sting might distract you for a few moments.
I’m howling!
I don’t know, ask Ziggy Stardust.
(Now I want to listen to some Bowie.)
I can’t believe it took 15 comments until Bowie got mentioned.
I note that food is very much a life-support consumable, and it can’t both be the case that there is plenty of it and not enough of it.
I deduce that the question is incoherent.
No sex in space please. Too near to God Almighty. You know what happens when God Almighty gets around sex. Cities are bombed and teenage girls get pregnant.
Weightlessness is ideal for physics problems but not for intercourse; a nudge toward you will send you flying backward with equal and opposite momentum. Without the familiar frame of reference provided by Earth’s gravity, concepts like “top” and “bottom” are without physical meaning. All of this will make the orientationless mambo awkward.
BDSM to the rescue! Restraints, chains, handcuffs, velcro! Also, there may have to be a Dom(me)/proctor minding or presiding over each couple while they’re fucking…
As for sex-in-space, I haven’t read the book but surely, after talking about frustrated astronauts bouncing off each other, they must discuss the obvious solution: that first they grab each other and simply keep holding on while doing the rest.
Weinersmith & Weinersmith have their daily webcomic. Another science-literate webcomic is XKCD – much recommended, including the books the author has published; such as “What If?” and “Thing Explainer”.
This post is silly. Sex would be very much easier in space. Of course you hold onto each other, but use your imagination people – more positions than the Karma Sutra. X-D
The the cannibalism thing obviously has nothing to do with space particularly.
… or even the Kamasutra. Sorry.
@ ^ Silentbob : I guess pregancy & STDs are karma sutra from practicing too much Kama sutra?
@ 5 KG : “Scientific American for October 2023 has an article Why We’ll Never Live in Space by Sarah Scoles.”
Has Scoles not heard of the International Space Station or the Mir, Skylab, various Soviet Salyuts, China’s Tiangong, etc..
There’s already people living in space. Some for quite extended periods indeed. See :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records#Ten_longest_human_spaceflights
@ 12. Louis :
An article here WARNING : Possibly NSFW, obvs sexual refs notes :
Source : https://www.cnet.com/science/space-sex-science-nasa-esa-zero-gravity/
The same source ^ also notes :
Answering the point raised by # 10. mamba.
No, I don’t know where kryptonite sits on the (ahem) Moh’s scale of hardness either.. Plus of course sex doesn’t necessarily require erections eg lesbians.
Incidentally, it turns out there’s actually a whole field of Space Sexology FWIW : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sexology
@11. Pierce R. Butler : “Lunar sex in particular sounds close to ideal, at least for the uninhibited: at 1/6 terrestrial weight (25 lbs for a 150-lb person), almost every individual would be able to pick up, spin around, and position almost every partner, “
I think Larry Niven among others has mentioned this in, if memory serves, The Patchwork Girl
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patchwork_Girl ) with other SF writers imagining some low gee sexual fun scenes in various novels & short stories too.
@ 17
He knows they’ll roll their eyes,
But he’ll post it just the same,
For Captain Hyperliteral,
No comment’s too inane.
Heh. Sonnets are sung in my honour; how flattering.
So.
There’s this movie called The Martian:
“Watney’s immediate concern is food; being a botanist, he creates a garden inside the Hab using Martian soil fertilized with the crew’s bio-waste and manufactures water from leftover rocket fuel. He then cultivates potatoes using whole potatoes reserved for a special Thanksgiving meal.”
Biowaste and potatoes — a Martian tradition.
(“I seen it!”)
[Seed House potatoes]
@SteveoR, #25,
Dammit, man, sometimes you just have to let a guy believe the myth!
;-)
[Actually, that was very interesting, and saved me having to explain my search history to anyone! :-) ]
Louis
It sounds like in weightless space some level of cooperation would be required at least more then is required in and earth normal gravity and like here active creative participation would be a great benefit.
hands on hips and start dancing. ;-)
So Scoles is specifically talking about significant human settlement, which none of the space stations so far could possibly count as.
As I say, I suspect she’s at least half wrong as far as the moon is concerned.
Can’t be wrong, the Moon is not space.
@ 32. KG : You don’t think thsoe spacew stations count as significant? Why not?
Note that many of these metaphrical “brick moons” have been continuously occupied for many years and they are numerous and built by many nations both in competition with each other and in co-operation with each other. Astronauts, cosmonauts and taikonauts have spent a lot of time living and working and making useful scientific contributions in them for years now.
See among other places : https://www.nasa.gov/missions/station/20-breakthroughs-from-20-years-of-science-aboard-the-international-space-station/
@ 33 Morales
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/space
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/outer-space
So your claim, Juan Ramón, is that the Moon exists within the atmosphere of the Earth?
(Your trolling is becoming progressively feeble – are you conscious of this marked degeneration of your mental acuity so apparent to others?)
SpoogyBib:
Nope. My claim (and I quote) is “the Moon is not space”.
See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_25
“The Luna 25 mission lifted off on 10 August 2023, 23:10 UTC, atop a Soyuz-2.1b rocket from the Vostochny Cosmodrome in Russia’s far eastern Amur Region,[3][10] and on 16 August entered lunar orbit. On 19 August at 11:57 UTC, the lander crashed on the Moon’s surface after a failed orbital manoeuvre.[11][2][12]”
See, one does not crash into space.
(Celestial bodies in general are not space)
Heh heh heh. It is your bluster that become ever more desperate, bub.
There is no trolling by me. There never was.
You, on the other hand, have admitted to it, O hypocrite. Literally.
The consensus is clearly that space colonization is too far-fetched; but I have the exact opposite problem:
Given that life on Earth has spread into every possible niche, no matter how inhospitable it may at first have been
Given that hairless apes have travelled from Africa to dominate every continent of Earth except Antarctica (and often hang out there for shits and giggles)
Given that 1,000 years ago no rational person could have conceived of technology that would allow people to fly in a metal tube weighing tons at 600 mph and 30,000 feet across the Pacific ocean – but today we take if for granted…
I just can’t bring myself to believe that intelligent life from Earth will never spread elsewhere. If we destroy ourselves, sure, that’s obviously a chilling possibility. But there simply is no physical law preventing life from spreading elsewhere – only technological challenges – and the idea that life on Earth would just choose to never rise to the challenge is so thoroughly contrary to all our experience up to now I can’t believe it.
So it’s not the “space geeks” who seem to me the most implausible (implausible though many may be), it’s the “space bastards”. You really, honestly believe life will never spread from Earth to elsewhere? Even though it’s entirely possible? Never? Not in a million years? Not in 100 million?
Sorry, but you “bastards” believe stuff that’s far too outlandish for me (if you’ll pardon the pun).
@ ^
Oops, wrong thread, crossposted to:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2023/11/08/space-bastards-vs-space-geeks/comment-page-1/#comment-2201026
Space Madness.
@ 28 Morales
“honour” <snicker>
Progress of a sort I suppose you identify as posting inane comments.
They are not significant human settlement. I would have thought this was obvious, but since you don’t, because “settlement” implies a degree of (a) permanence and (b) functional autonomy. Of course nothing lasts forever and no current human group is wholly functionally autonomous except perhaps the Sentinelese, and even they depend on the Indian government to keep intruders out. But, for example, people who first setled Iceland or Fiji did create “significant human settlements” in a way the shifting staff of space stations come nowhere near.
@ 39 Morales
Very robust argument, Juan Ramón. Fully of the rigour we’ve come to expect from you. Well done.
No worries, SmellyBog.
(Done like a dinner, you are)
@41. KG : Okay. I still think those space stations are prettty significant but I guess settlements as such maybe not. Still they are people living in space for actually rather prolonged periods.
Also yeah, not obvs to me. Degrees of eprmance? Yeah.
Permanence to degree, yeah. Autonomy, Well arguably not Yet.