NASA Puts A Stop To Space Romance 431
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'."
Meanwhile... (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly, I'd tell this panel to go fsck themselves, but they can't now anyway... right?
Married couple (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Fine, let's give it all to the Russians, then... (Score:3, Interesting)
How did the nation that BUILT the space shuttle get THIS stupid THIS fast? I want my tax dollars back!
Re:More proof that nasa management is (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not an organization guided by logic and reasoning and a clear understanding of limits to dollars and technology. Only minor sections of it understand the benefits of small linked successful steps. Especially at its headquarters it is infatuated with the big new thing, the silver bullet solution done by fiat- at any cost. Of course historically this has led to crummy solutions that you could hardly pay more for. And worst of all it is intensively guided by the perverted politics and the sophomoric thinking of a egomaniacal newbie leader. God help you if you cross Griffin. His shit list is long and well used.
The sort of thinking in this report from NASA shows just how far away they are from realizing any true vision of exploration. You cannot explore efficiently with six or even a dozen crew. You will need at least two dozen to be more effective than simple robotic exploration and I would argue far more (on the order of 90) to be effective enough to justify the tens of billions in excess investment.
Assuming that a crew will perform like robots for anything over a few weeks while doing anything risky is nonsensical. Sitting in a can at ISS does not fall in this category. There is no real perceived risk there. Exploration means getting that space suit dirty. Having to rely on non-pristine gear that may have been abused by the previous user. There will be no one looking over your shoulder on Mars. If there are any actual people on the mission they are going to form relationships- whether mission control likes it or not. The dynamics of these relationships are unpredictable but are not necessarily a source of evil. In fact the opposite can be argued. A successful plan is not to ignore the problem and wish it away and end up with piss-poor ad hoc solutions but to think through the whole thing. This will mean that your crew selection parameters will have to change. A collection of neo-con prudes, or those with hair trigger jealously-induced violent streaks will probably not be the optimal solution.
For NASA to be even pondering this is a total waste of time and money at this stage. There is not enough money to complete (or even really start) the preposterous exploration vision given the present fiscal situation, the grossly inefficient architecture and typical programmatic cost ballooning that we have seen historically with NASA. Sad to say but they are going NOWHERE with the present plans. Squandering resources ( ie my tax money ) on this sort of fluff is an insult to the taxpayer- expecially given the quality of the work.
BTW you don't need to go to the Russians to get a decent heavy lift system for exploration. Especially a fossilized model like the Energia. They can be made right here in the US which is where the best new work on launch vehicles has been done. Unfortunately NASA has systematically removed these most competent teams from consideration in their thinking. When you insist that an untried and untested team are your first stringers you know what you get? Yep - a second-rate solution.
Send in the porn stars (Score:2, Interesting)
They could have sex all the time, they wouldn't care who's fucking who.
and with all the montoring of the crew, NASA could podcast the whole thing
as pay-per-view porn and make some money back from the failed polar lander attempt.
Re:Geez... (Score:2, Interesting)
Just imagine the weightlessness! Yipee, what fun! You'd probably have to tie yourself up to some posts because with weightlessness you can't stand in one spot, because there is no friction between your feet and the ground. Handcuffs anyone? Or just hold on to some bars, while your mate holds on to you. Or you can pretty much just hold on to each other as you both spin floating in the middle of the space cabin, getting very dizzy, then just imagine the goo floating in a big ball in mid air, when you're done, flying slowly toward the wall to make a splat. If you get carried away and spin too fast, you might hit and smash your head into the instrumentation if you're not careful. Imagine the reporters talking about an accident on the spaceship causing a few million dollars damage to some instrument, and we can cross off one of the missions from the list, cuz we no longer can do it. I guess in space 'safe sex' will have a different meaning.
Still, this is one of the best ways to attract young college students to space school! Don't even need an ad campaign! But you better be very good at math, and in top physical shape, if you want to go on this joyride! If you didn't have an incentive to take up a science career, now you have one! And your status as a nerd will suddenly surge to the top, because not blondes, but nerds will have the most fun, that mere mortals stuck on the high gravity ground here can only dream of!
Re:Sex is an important part of life. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 starting to be more accepted in our society, though it is still taboo to most of the population. It IS difficult to juggle relationships, because jealousy is also a part of our sexual behavior, I think.
I think allowing humans to have sex on such a journey, to pacify sex drive, would produce a happier crew.
Though, as someone else above had stated, having cameras onboard, and turning the footage into a reality TV show, may be another way to fund similar space ventures. I would certainly give-up my privacy for an opportunity to go to Mars.
Now all we need is to drop the taboo with marijuana on space missions...
Re:Sex is an important part of life. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.