Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NASA Puts A Stop To Space Romance

Posted by Zonk on Sat Oct 22, 2005 03:20 AM
from the heinlein-rolling-in-his-grave dept.
electro-donkey writes "According to a New Scientist article, romantic entanglements among astronauts could derail long-haul space trips. A top-level NASA panel has decided, though it could alleviate boredom, space sex could cause trouble too. On a mission to Mars, for example, which would take up to 30 months, sexual conflict or infidelity could lead to a 'breakdown in crew functioning'."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Geez... (Score:5, Funny)

    by ratnerstar (609443) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:22AM (#13851266) Homepage
    No space sex? Why the hell am I wasting my time at astronaut school, then?!
    • Re:Geez... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22 2005, @04:06AM (#13851398)
      No space sex?

      TFA (yeah, I read it) doesn't say anything about banning space sex. That's something made up for the Slashdot headline.

      The first paragraph of the article sums it up pretty well "Sex and romantic entanglements among astronauts could derail missions to Mars and should therefore be studied by NASA, warns a top-level panel of US researchers."

      So a panel of researchers want to 'study' sex and romantic entaglements. Nice work if you can get it, but no 'ban' implied.

      First actually-read-the-article post.
      • by MooseByte (751829) on Saturday October 22 2005, @10:50AM (#13852537)

        "Sex and romantic entanglements among astronauts could derail missions to Mars and should therefore be studied by NASA, warns a top-level panel of US researchers."

        So in reality we've got a top-level panel of US researches who are tantalizingly close to achieving the ultimate Holy Grail - pursuing workplace sex, romantic entanglements and porn in the name of "research".

        Godspeed lads, godspeed.

        • Re:Geez... (Score:3, Informative)

          No-sex enforcement is traditionally accomplished with chastity belts, male and female versions available and tested for centuries.
    • Re:Geez... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Saturday October 22 2005, @07:10AM (#13851802) Homepage
      This should be modded Insightful. If space sex were mandatory, we'd be on Alpha Centauri by now.
  • by Mori Chu (737710) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:23AM (#13851267)
    Haven't these people seen Star Trek? Kirk did it with every green woman in space, and that crew turned out fine...
    • Yes but Kird never did it with McCoy or Spock or Ensign Rand. That's the important part. NASA isn't banning interspecial sex, just sex among the crew (what NASA will do if it decides to send George Bus^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H a moneky along with the human crew is anyones guess). After all, look at Tasha and Data. He has sex with her one time, and that's it she's all like "yeah I wanna leave now. Can I get killed off or something?"

      And also look at Neelix and Kes. He is a pedophile (she wasn't even 10 years old!)
      • by some guy I know (229718) on Saturday October 22 2005, @05:10AM (#13851531) Homepage
        You're forgetting the pilot and first officer of Serenity.
        (You know, that blonde geeky guy and the hot chick from Cleopatra 2525.)
        They're married and get it on regularly (it seems), but the only conflict that I've seen them have is that he sometimes gets jealous of the relationship between his wife and the captain, and she wants a kid but he doesn't.
        Also, Serenity is a small ship with a small crew, and no holodeck, replicators, or transporters.

        All in all, Firefly seems to be a much closer match to what an actual Mars mission would be like, in terms of technology and the size of the ship and crew, than the various Star Trek scenarios.

        Well, except for the artificial gravity.

        And the hooker.
      • by 1u3hr (530656) on Saturday October 22 2005, @06:22AM (#13851678)
        NASA isn't banning interspecial sex, just sex among the crew

        To be serious for a moment, no one seems to have read TFA. The Slashdot heading is false. TFA says nothing about "banning" sex, just that it is a subject that has been ignored but must be studied in planning long missions.

        Now returning you to your scheduled program of sniggering jokes....

      • by Xyrus (755017) on Saturday October 22 2005, @07:41AM (#13851889) Journal
        We'll by the time they can do a mission to Mars, the solution will be present:

        Virtual Valerie, a fully interactive holographic sex goddess. You want three boobs, you get three boobs.

        For the women, from what I hear, they're happy just with this thing called a "Rabbit" right now.

        ~X~
      • Oh, ha ha ha. You called George Bush a monkey. How witty and original.

        -ccm

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:24AM (#13851270)
    they will be reading Slashdot. It's the only medicine for 30 months without sex.
  • Easy one (Score:5, Funny)

    by RedLaggedTeut (216304) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:24AM (#13851272) Homepage Journal
    Just send a married couple, two gays, two lesbians, the Pope and Darl McBride on the mission.

    Since no one loves Darl, and the Pope loves everyone but does not have sex, relationships are stable.
    • Re:Easy one (Score:5, Funny)

      by Guppy06 (410832) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:53AM (#13851361) Journal
      "Just send a married couple, two gays, two lesbians, the Pope and Darl McBride on the mission."

      A mission to where, a bar?
    • and what happens when the married guy suggests a 3some involving one of the lesbians and his wife?
    • Re:Easy one (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FidelCatsro (861135) <fidelcatsro.gmail@com> on Saturday October 22 2005, @04:01AM (#13851383) Journal
      I have an even better Idea .
      Let's send 6 lesbians porn stars and a A film crew . Kills two birds with one stone , no space sex conflicts and you could fund the next Moon landing with "Star whores : A new elope "
    • Since no one loves Darl, and the Pope loves everyone...

      Then logically, either Darl or the Pope is not a person! (In this case, I highly suspect that Darl McBride is the guilty party)

      • Re:Easy one (Score:5, Funny)

        by njcoder (657816) on Saturday October 22 2005, @04:42AM (#13851469)
        "The only two crews where no sex is not going to be a problem is an all male or an all female crew with no homo- and bisexuals, and only if there is enough porn on board."

        Yeah... that theory has been working out well in the prison system and in all girl colleges.

      • How about this? Why not just send 4 horny bisexuals (2 male, 2 female) who don't have any hangups about group sex?

        Then NASA could just sell the video feed of their "fun room" to help recoup the costs on the mission!
  • by BottleCup (691335) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:25AM (#13851274) Homepage

    In a mission to Mars, for example, which would take up to 30 months, sexual conflict or infidelity could lead to a 'breakdown in crew functioning'.

    30 months??? Who the heck can function properly without sex for 30 months?

    • by FooGoo (98336) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:31AM (#13851297)
      As a married man...I can tell you it is possible although I wouldn't recommend it.
    • by sznupi (719324) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:36AM (#13851311) Homepage
      The one in who the sex isn't a bit "disfunctional". When the sex is concious, when it serves itself and not releasing of stress/coping with todays world (yeah, when it doesn't have neurotic background) one can be perfectly fine without it.

      Trust me, NASA will find skilled enough psychologists to determine if candidates for Mars mission are up to the job in this regard.
    • by aussie_a (778472) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:45AM (#13851339) Journal
      Who the heck can function properly without sex for 30 months?

      Well slashdotters are able to function properly without sex for 30 years... oh wait.

      Living in parents basement: Check
      Anti-social behaviour: Check
      Radical beliefs: Check
      Terrorist activities: Check


      Hmmm, I guess even slashdotters can't function properly without sex for 30 months (which explains a lot).
    • 30? Pish. I'm approaching 168 months without sex, and still functioning perfe- GNYAAAAHHH! AAARGHHHH!

      Ahem. So, where do I sign up for this Mars thing?

    • GROUND CONTROL: Ah, Mars One, we just wanted to check whether you folks have been, ah, following the policy against sex, over.

      (five-minute delay while the signal propagates to the spacecraft at the speed of light, and then another five-minute delay while the reply makes its way back to Earth)

      MARS ONE: Ah, roger that, Houston. We're following that policy.

      • by peeping_Thomist (66678) on Saturday October 22 2005, @08:09AM (#13851967)
        Three days is more than I can usually handle without my brain going into a fit of chaos.

        If you're telling the truth about this, then your brain is already in a continual fit of chaos.
      • Expecting them to go without for 30 months is foolish and choosing to ignore the problem will work just about as well as not providing sex ed to horny highschool kids.

        I believe this is true. Humans are going to have sex with each other, whether or not you tell them not to, whether or not you educate them, or even if they are of the same sex. Sex is a part of our physiology, and is integrated into our systems -- we're supposed to screw, and often! It's healthy!

        Also, I've noticed that polyamorism is st
      • by glaucopis (874967) on Saturday October 22 2005, @11:32AM (#13852723)

        Send them up half male and half female with orders that they need to rotate partners on a daily basis. Well laid people with multiple partners they aren't previously attached to are less likely to get into jealous rages or similar problems.

        How would mandatory daily sex be any better than forbidden sex? What if you're gay -- can you turn down partners of the other sex? Or, despite your qualifications, do you not get to go on the mission at all, since it's unlikely you'd get provided with more than one other gay partner in the article's 6-8 member crew? What if you're straight and just aren't attracted to a particular member of the opposite sex -- do you get to turn them down, too? Are you going to carefully choose four attractive straight men and four attractive straight women for your mission and hope that none of them realizes mid-journey that they're actually interested in someone of the same sex and messes your little rotations up? You really think mandating sex will be less disruptive than forbidding it or just letting it happen on its own?

        These people are astronauts and know their lifes depend on working together. If they can't work together even when they hate each other (or worse - love each other) then they shouldn't be sent up.

        Exactly. They're highly trained intelligent adults; there shouldn't be any need for either sex bans or your solution. They should be tested for their ability to peacefully coexist with a small group of people for sustained periods of time before they're chosen for the mission, since this is a key requirement for their job, and then trusted to live up to their training. Someone who's prone to jealous rages shouldn't be sent, regardless of their overall brilliance. Other than that, as long as the group regularly voices its concerns and deals with them, I fail to see what the problem of space relationships would be.

  • Employ Me (Score:5, Funny)

    by thedogcow (694111) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:26AM (#13851278)
    I am offering my services to NASA. As a true geek (obvious by reading Slashdot at 8:30Z) I would stick to the pure sciences of the mission and clearly state now that I not interested in sex by any means. Who needs sex when you have zero gravity anywho!
  • From TFA (Score:5, Informative)

    by putko (753330) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:29AM (#13851289) Homepage Journal
    Fine to make such a well-considered policy -- but if the astronauts are like these brutes, they'll ignore the rules and revert to their natural behavior:

    "Sexual harassment may also endanger a mission. In an 8-month space station simulation on Earth in 2000, a Russian man twice tried to kiss a Canadian woman researcher just after two other Russians had gotten into a bloody brawl. As a result, locks were installed between the Russian and international crews' compartments."
  • by DrXym (126579) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:30AM (#13851292)
    Ensure that every member is a complete slut.
  • Or... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vectorian798 (792613) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:30AM (#13851293)
    ...it could increase productivity because in the barren Martian landscape we would still have some sign of humanity around to keep us going.

    "One could perhaps select for people who seem to have less need for sex, or at least don't use sex as a form of self-validation", a quote from some random psychologist not part of the NASA board, but happens to be quoted in this article (seriously...do journalists just accept anything that agrees with their news titles as evidence?).

    Heh sex is a major part of all forms of life...why paint it in such a light. This is like moral judgement.

    There is validity to both sides (free choice versus disruption of work), but I don't think personal matters should be part of NASA's decisions...it just seems to be outside of their jursidiction, if you will, especially on long-haul missions where astronauts are away from other human beings for long periods of time.
  • by Mori Chu (737710) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:32AM (#13851302)
    At least you'd have privacy for the moment of climax. In space, no one can hear you scream...
  • by Mori Chu (737710) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:35AM (#13851308)
    Out-of-this-world sex could jeopardise missions
    What if the men promise to do a mediocre job of it instead?
  • by Rxke (644923) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:44AM (#13851335) Homepage
    Nothing in the article suggest they will put a stop on it.

    It's just another overgeneral article about pro's and cons of relationships on long missions, and some examples.

    Oh, and they're going to stuy it some more...

    Nothing to see here, move along.

  • by tcatt (832763) on Saturday October 22 2005, @03:45AM (#13851338)
    Heck, NASA thinks they're so smart. If they we really thinking they would realize that a trip to mars with 8 crew members along with all the so-called 'infedelity' and 'intense relationships' is a perfect chance to corner the reality TV market!

    They'd be killing all their birds with one stone, for pete's sake. Huge media coverage, lucrative advertising sponsorships... man NASA would be overfunded and popular again for the first time since the 60's. C'mon NASA, give America what it really wants!

    They could call it "Pigs in Space" or wait.. yeah that one was taken. Too bad it's a classic.

    "Vote 'em off the shuttle!"

  • by rusty0101 (565565) on Saturday October 22 2005, @04:02AM (#13851388) Homepage Journal
    ... in 'Stranger in a Strange Land.' I would have thought that the issues would have been well understood.

    I think it would also be understood that as long as you have a mixed gender group of people together for an extended period of time, there isn't a lot you can do to prevent it either.

    Valentine Smith.

    -Rusty
  • Meanwhile... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nobodyman (90587) on Saturday October 22 2005, @04:07AM (#13851399)
    ...chunks of foam are still breaking off of the space shuttle and the heat shielding tiles need to be fixed via spacewalks. Fortunately, the agonizing decision as to whether astronauts should have sex has been laid to rest. Thank goodness, because I was beginning to think that NASA had lost its focus!

    Honestly, I'd tell this panel to go fsck themselves, but they can't now anyway... right?
  • Married couple (Score:3, Interesting)

    by photonic (584757) on Saturday October 22 2005, @04:09AM (#13851406)
    Well at least one married couple [nasa.gov] has flown on the space shuttle. If an experiment was ever performed they would be the prime candidates, so go ask them.

    I also heard a story of a pair on a shuttle having a relation and getting married shortly after the flight. Apparently NASA wasn't told before and was not happy. (Might have been the same couple.) And of course the rumours that some Russkies sacrificed themselves for science. I can't find a reference for both stories unfortunately.

  • What is worse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by atlep (36041) on Saturday October 22 2005, @04:11AM (#13851411)
    What is worse than 30 months without sex? 30 months in a small closed environment, where others have sex, but you don't get any.

    Man, that would get me frustrated beyond reason. And the realisation of this is why I understand why NASA is doing this.

    Actually, 30 months without sex, I think I could do it if I were on such a mission. Because I would be mentally prepared for this. I know the other crewmembers are not having sex either. And the sex fixation in our siciety would not be there on a daily basis. Of course, I would expect periods of frustration. But I don't think it would be a major problem.

    When there is no potential for sex, when there is no constant reminder of sex around you, it is much easier to live without it. But if others in your crew are having sex, and you don't get any. That would really make things difficult.

    Of course, drugs that temporary kill libido would be very welcome too.
    • 60 months with out sex.

      It's called grad school. You don't have sleep either. I think that most of the scientists aboard such space missions are quite used to not getting laid, and the adaptation to life without sleep is probably beneficial in space as well.
  • by Adammil2000 (797026) on Saturday October 22 2005, @04:19AM (#13851431)
    No matter how weird things get, the air will clear when ground control calls to remind the crew, "if you miss the timing on this deorbit burn, you're all going to burn to death."

    No Earth-based station simulation is going to completely capture the urgency of real space travel.
  • by Hakubi_Washu (594267) <washuNO@SPAMuni.de> on Saturday October 22 2005, @05:26AM (#13851555)
    Noone feels left out and if they've lived together for years before on earth there's no reason to assume they're going to break down during flight either.
    I'm completely serious btw.
  • by Hosiah (849792) on Saturday October 22 2005, @07:22AM (#13851828)
    If we're actually going to hold back the most ambitious achievement of human history based on some Dark Ages puritanism, lets just sell the shuttle to France or some damn thing and forget about science, period. I mean, how are they planning to enforce this? Lock chastity belts on the astronauts before they launch? And did they get the idea that sex and space travel don't mix from seeing that episode where Spock flipped out during "pon farr"?

    How did the nation that BUILT the space shuttle get THIS stupid THIS fast? I want my tax dollars back!

    • To be fair, it's not "Dark Ages puritanism" - it's more like not mixing work and personal life. There are a number of ways in which sex in space could make interaction between crew members very awkward, which would in turn make the whole crew less efficient, which could be dangerous and costly. Plus, can you imagine what would happen if whatever method of birth control they're using failed? Hopefully they'd be smart enough to get permenantly sterilized before trying something like that, but if not it cou
  • by defile (1059) on Saturday October 22 2005, @08:16AM (#13851987) Homepage Journal
    is FORBIDDEN space sex
  • solution (Score:5, Funny)

    by labyrinth (65992) on Saturday October 22 2005, @08:53AM (#13852121)
    I think NASA should adopt the Dr.Strangelove solution.

    General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

    Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature. Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.