5743817
story
Comments: 262 +- Science: Making Babies In Space May Not Be Easy on Monday August 31, @11:40PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicspace.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
space
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicscience.gif); width:62px; height:75px;
science
Hugh Pickens writes "Studies of reproduction in space have previously been carried out with sea urchins, fish, amphibians and birds, but Brandon Keim writes in Wired that Japanese biologists have discovered that although mammalian fertilization may take place normally in space, as mouse embryos develop in microgravity their cells have trouble dividing and maturing. The researchers artificially fertilized mouse eggs with sperm that had been stored inside a three-dimensional clinostat, a machine that mimics weightlessness by rotating objects in such a way that the effects of gravity are spread in every direction. Some embryos were ultimately implanted in female mice and survived to a healthy birth, but at lower numbers than a regular-gravity control group. Part of the difference could be the result of performing tricky procedures on sensitive cells, but the researchers suspect they also reflect the effect of a low-gravity environment on cellular processes that evolved for Earth-specific physics. '"These results suggest for the first time that fertilization can occur normally under G environment in a mammal, but normal preimplantation embryo development might require 1G," concludes the report. "Sustaining life beyond Earth either on space stations or on other planets will require a clear understanding of how the space environment affects key phases of mammalian reproduction."'"
Related Stories
: by
No man in the world has more courage than the man who can stop after
eating one peanut.
-- Channing Pollock
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
The beginning bit is probably tricky too (Score:5, Funny)
Zero gravity probably makes the actual copulation bit kinda tricky too.
Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too (Score:5, Funny)
cleaning up afterward might also be a bitch
But no worries about who sleeps in the wet spot...
Parent
Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too (Score:4, Interesting)
It's worse than that. In regular gravity, any fluid left over will go to the floor. Where will it go in freefall? Essentially everywhere. Be it your clothes, your hair, electronics ...
It's probably a bit more serious than it is fun.
Also - imagine what happens if someone sneezes. Apart from the jet effect, you now have a huge spray of mist that'll continue until it hits something.
Parent
Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed. In space, everyone sleeps in the rain.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or who's on top.
Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too (Score:5, Funny)
They should contact the Mile High Club to send over some representatives
Parent
Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
"There is no reason to expect that their clinostat successfully captures the essence of the problem"
I looked at the image of that clinostat. The researchers are probably pretty smart people, but there is just no way that a centrifuge on steroids can duplicate zero-G. The embryos have to be subjected for changing gravitational forces. Said forces may cumulatively add up to zero, in theory, but those embryos aren't experiencing theory.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No matter how smart they are, they have proved they have a flaw in their logic. Cumulative Force isn't the same thing as Peak Force.
They are applying motion to the samples so its no wonder the samples are reacting differently to motion than being stationary in gravity. Which is also different again from being in zero G.
The peak differences are an important factor. For example no one would question it woul
Re:The challenge (Score:5, Insightful)
People around here bash scientist a lot, when they are really reading the media. I had a teacher once who had a favorite saying that it seemed like he said at least once a class... "All models are wrong, but some are useful". The same can be said about simulations. After an experiment is performed, in which something is simulated, conclusions are supposed to be drawn. Then, further experiments are supposed to prove or disprove these conclusions. Are you suggesting that they should not have tried this experiment first (which is probably 1/10 of the cost of doing it in space)? They will probably use this experiment as justification for a grant to actually try it in space.
Science is constrained by fiscal realities. And the honest fact is that even if we do have the experiment done completely in space, it is still being done on mice. We won't know how it affects humans until we send a girl up there to get knocked up and see what happens.
Parent
May not be easy... (Score:4, Funny)
... but I'm willing to try!
Re:May not be easy... (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed. "According to NASA research, Tasha, we have to do this 8,000 more times before it succeeds....Honest; here's NASA's paper on it..."
Parent
Re:May not be easy... (Score:5, Funny)
Tasha: "But at the rate you do it, that could take HOURS".
Parent
Re:May not be easy... (Score:4, Funny)
All you have to do is find the G-spot, and it'll all be ok.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A geek needs to find the g-spot for us to be OK? ZOMG, we're doomed!
So, what I read is.. (Score:5, Funny)
b) consequences of sex in space: non-existant
I am pleased.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Until you get space AIDS -- Andromeda immunodeficiency strain. Did you never read classic Crichton?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
a) sex in space: easy
b) consequences of sex in space: non-existant
I am pleased.
The pope won't be.
Look for Casti Conubbi II - no sex in space on pain of excommunication.
Re:So, what I read is.. (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, they said "don't spill it on the ground". There's nothing about spilling it into little floating pearls.
Parent
Logic fail. (Score:4, Insightful)
If I put an egg into a blender, I'm pretty sure it'd have a hard time forming a chicken too.
childish question (Score:5, Funny)
Why?
Parent
Re:childish question (Score:5, Funny)
Because blenders are very poor at maintaining a temperature of 102 degrees Fahrenheit and very good at turning everything inside of them into a smooth paste.
Parent
.. on your part (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine you're at the center of a giant plastic ball full of water. You have to tell whether or not you're in zero-G.
If the ball was sitting on the surface of the earth you might sink or float to the top, and you'd know right away you're not in zero-G.
Now imagine the
Re:Logic fail. (Score:4, Insightful)
And real mothers rotate, too! Many human mothers spend hours per day standing, resting on their backs, and resting on their sides. Not to mention spending time actually moving.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Randomly changing the directions of gravity != no gravity.
How is gravity in all directions = no gravity ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is gravity in all directions = no gravity ?
When most people, even most space biologists, talk about "the effect of gravity" they really mean the effect of some force that counters gravity in order to reduce acceleration. ie: in "microgravity" you're still being acted on by gravity, accelerating toward the nearest, largest mass, but that mass is perpetually moving out of the way before you hit it. The forces resisting gravitational acceleration are very small and we say you're in "zero G."
So, "gravity in all directions simultaneously" is like "no g
Physics Fail (Score:4, Interesting)
If you are outside the atmosphere, and not accelerating then you're basically in free fall.
Err no. If you are in freefall then you ARE accelerating be the very definition of what freefall means. If you let go of a ball it will accelerate downwards and it is in freefall. Freefall means that you are free to fall i.e. that only force acting on you is gravity and so the force of gravity will cause you to accelerate.
Sure, gravity is pulling you somewhere, but it doesn't really have an effect on anything inside the spacecraft (your reference frame is moving with you).
Hang on a minute. How can you possibly say that gravity is pulling you somewhere and at the same time claim that it is not affecting anything inside the spacecraft? What do you think is causing things inside the spacecraft to accelerate then? By definition your reference frame is ALWAYS moving with you even if when your surroundings are not. What gravity does is make this an accelerating reference frame instead of an inertial reference frame and the two are most definitely NOT the same.The equivalence between gravity and acceleration is one of the core concepts of GR.
From a biological perspective there is no discernible effect due to gravity.
Yes there is. The reason that your organism is accelerating towards the centre of the planet is an easily measurable effect. In both the case of freefall and sitting on the surface of the planet there are discernable effects due to gravity. In the first case you are accelerating and in the second case you are not accelerating because there is a reaction force between you and the surface of the planet equal and opposite to your weight. In the latter case your internal structure must transmit this normal force throughout your body to cancel your weight in order to prevent all parts of you from accelerating but in both cases the force of gravity acts on all parts of you to the same degree (assuming the same field strength).
This is the same as taking a lift. When the lift accelerates down it does not mean that gravity has suddenly become less it just means that your body has a reduced normal force to distribute because you have a small, downwards acceleration.
Parent
Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this* (Score:5, Interesting)
So don't do that.
Using acceleration to counteract undesirable effects of microgravity appears to be a universally ignored solution. It's like people are so amazed by how awesome zero-g is that they can't accept that working against it might be the best option.
problem: humans lose bone mass in zero-g
brain dead solution: we need to change humans with drugs! oh, and we'll make them exercise more too.
problem: embryos don't develop normally in zero-g
brain dead solution: we need to study embryonic development more, and hey, maybe we can find some drugs to fix it!
problem: transferring cryogenic propellant in zero-g is hard
brain dead solution: we need to learn more about fluid dynamics in zero-g!
Back in the Gemini days they actually bothered to join a pair of spacecraft together and spin them up. The effect was about 1000th of a g, but it was a successful mission. Everyone presumed that NASA would continue this research after Apollo, with longer tethers and slower rotation, a 1g environment could be created. That didn't happen. Instead, the fixed module concept took over and "studying the effects of zero-g" became the mantra. No matter, the Japanese space program proposed a module that would allow the study of incremental gravity on mammals, everything from low gravity to three times earth gravity, or the astronauts could sleep in it. That was scrubbed.
Meanwhile, private industry is solving the problem of propellant transfer [ulalaunch.com].
Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this* (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, one advantage to using drugs is, in theory, if we have issues on the Moon or Mars, we merely have to adjust the dosage. It'll be tough to build a 1G chamber on the Moon. Also, the research into this problem has helped people with osteoporosis here on Earth.
That said, I tend to agree with you. Astronauts spend two-and-a-half hours per day exercising so that they don't collapse when they get back to Earth. At this risk of sounding like a cruel taskmaster, that's time that could be spent doing experiments and the other things that our tax dollars are paying for.
The worst part is that there doesn't even appear to be any research going on in this area. How much gravity is necessary? 0.5G? 0.3G? 0.1G? Could they work in 0.3G and sleep in 0G? Could they work in 0G and sleep in 0.3G? This could affect the design of long-duration spacecraft.
While the research into drugs is a good thing and helps us down here on Earth, to me it is not necessarily a good solution because you have to pack enough drugs to get them to Mars, enough drugs for them while on Mars, and enough drugs to get them back to Earth.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It'll be tough to build a 1G chamber on the Moon.
It'll be a damn sight easier than building a 0.16G chamber on Earth. Unless you have a source of Cavorite that you're not telling us about?
Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this* (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like people are so amazed by how awesome zero-g is that they can't accept that working against it might be the best option.
That's probably what influences the designers of spacecraft.. the awesomeness of zero-g...
Either that or because systems involving artificial gravity are too costly to justify themselves, and the "brain dead" solutions are actually smart solutions which save money/make missions possible.
Perhaps a spaceflight engineer would respond "problem: no gravity in orbit, we're not used to this. brain dead solution: create artificial gravity! price/practicality is no object if it means we have no new problems to solve!"
Maybe at some point there will be a zero-g problem which really is easier to solve with centrifuges than with anything else, and you can bet when that point comes centrifuges will be chosen.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Tethering a capsule to the burned out upper stage of the rocket and spinning it up is neither hard nor expensive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter, the Japanese space program proposed a module that would allow the study of incremental gravity on mammals, everything from low gravity to three times earth gravity, or the astronauts could sleep in it. That was scrubbed.
Why (not) on Earth would you want to simulate >1g in space? Anything below 1g, sure, but for greater you could just use a centrifuge on Earth where it doesn't take 1000kg of propellant to get every kilogram of payload to your test apparatus.
Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this* (Score:5, Informative)
It's not ignored - it's turned out to be devilishly difficult to arrange.
Everyone who? Because everyone I know is familiar with the problems with those tethers bring with them.
Its extraordinarily difficult to stop and start the rotation. Its difficult to avoid tension problems during payout, it's REALLY difficult to prevent snarls during retraction. It's extraordinarily incredibly difficult to make orbital corrections while tethered and spinning...
Until someone comes up with some engineering solutions to test (and they are working on them and two tether deployment tests (both failures) have flown on the Shuttle), any experimentation is moot - kinda like sticking your finger into boiling water to see if it burns you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Using acceleration to counteract undesirable effects of microgravity appears to be a universally ignored solution. It's like people are so amazed by how awesome zero-g is that they can't accept that working against it might be the best option.
Even considered that it's not as easy as it sounds? One of the main problems (I'm sure there's more) is that unless your "vehicle" is huge, then making it spin causes both a "gravity gradient (gravity on your head will be smaller than on your feet) and strong Coriolis forces (people and objects cannot follow a straight line).
NASA should experiment with some... (Score:3, Funny)
Cancelled (Score:3, Interesting)
These types of questions could be answered by comparing micro-gravity to artifial gravity. Unfortunately, the ISS module designed to do just that was cancelled [wikipedia.org]
Just for the record... (Score:5, Interesting)
In his Known Space universe, the true separation of space-based ("Belter") culture from Earth-based ("Flatlander") culture occurred when the Belters completed their massive 'terraforming' of the inside of an asteroid named Sanctuary as a shelter and home for pregnant Belter women. Rotating the asteroid up to 1-g, they eliminated their last unwanted ties to Earth as women no longer needed to return to the home planet for the period of gestation and birth.
Though, if I remember correctly, Larry Niven's justification for the need was a bit different, as he reasoned that a human fetus brought to term in very low gravity would grow to a size that endangered the life of the mother... I think.
Re:Just for the record... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or rather Larry Niven invented a plot device to create the Belter culture... And of the hundreds of plot devices that he invented, one happened to be somewhat correct.
Parent
Why not just send some mice up to the ISS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Volunteers needed? (Score:4, Funny)
Dear NASA
I for one wish to volunteer for this dangerous experiment to determine whether copulation is possible in a zero-g environment and whether a viable embryo can be formed.
Qualifications:
I have extensive experience with the ZERO sex protocol, so therefore am a perfect candidate for the upgraded ZERO-G sexual encounter.
Thank you for your time
P.S. Please send the mother of the first person to post a smart-arsed reply as one of the female candidates on the mission.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you for your interest in our Copulation in Space Program! After reviewing your qualifications, we have determined that you unfortunately do not qualify. At this time, we are only seeking experienced candidates for the mission, and seeing as how you have ZERO experience with sexual reproduction, we are unable to process your application. We will keep your application on file and, should an appropriate opportunity arise, we'll contact you in your mother's basement at that time.
Re:Where can I find results of all those experimen (Score:5, Informative)
where can I find results of all those experiments?
You better clear out your calendar, you have a lot reading [nasa.gov] ahead of you.
Parent
Re:Where can I find results of all those experimen (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Reproduction in space (Score:5, Funny)
Humans cannot withstand long term micro-gravity. Period.
There's your problem. You're not pregnant until you STOP having periods.
Parent
Re:Reproduction in space (Score:5, Insightful)
After about a year in space you cannot walk when you land on earth.
This isn't necessarily a problem. Sure, if you want to walk around Earth then you're going to be in a bit of a fix... But what if you plan on spending the rest of your days in space? What if it's a one-way trip?
If we are going to live in space we are going to have to figure out how to create gravity on whatever structure we decide to inhabit.
I thought we'd already figured this bit out? All you have to do is spin the structure.
I really doubt we would mutate fast enough to take advantage of weightlessness to survive.
We don't need to.
When's the last time you saw somebody sitting out in a snowstorm waiting to mutate and grow an insulating fur coat? Around here we just but on a coat. We're human beings, we have brains, we can make and use tools.
That's the whole point of experiments like this one. We're not going to wait around for environmental forces to craft us into better organisms... We're going to identify the problems and fix them, just like we have for thousands of years. That's what we do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Humans have survived in space for extended periods without difficulty. Given a large enough breeding population there is absolutely no reason why a space-based species could not evolve. If you have no data, you're just pissing in the wind.
And if you're just making up bullshit that directly contradicts everything we've learned from fifty years of putting people in orbit, you're just an Anonymous Coward.