?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Emission control: the NASA space sex experiments (EDIT: HOAX!) - Open Knowledge — LiveJournal

Dec. 10th, 2007

02:36 pm - Emission control: the NASA space sex experiments (EDIT: HOAX!)

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

[EDIT: appears to be a hoax: http://www.snopes.com/risque/tattled/shuttle.asp Hat tip to zarex.]

Pierre Kohler, author of The Final Mission: Mir, The Human Adventure says:

The issue of sex in space is a serious one,” he says. “The experiments carried out so far relate to missions planned for married couples on the future International Space Station, the successor to Mir. Scientists need to know how far sexual relations are possible without gravity.”

He cites a confidential Nasa report on a space shuttle mission in 1996. A project codenamed STS-XX was to explore sexual positions possible in a weightless atmosphere.

Twenty positions were tested by computer simulation to obtain the best 10, he says. “Two guinea pigs then tested them in real zero-gravity conditions. The results were videotaped but are considered so sensitive that even Nasa was only given a censored version.”

Only four positions were found possible without “mechanical assistance”. The other six needed a special elastic belt and inflatable tunnel, like an open-ended sleeping bag.

Mr Kohler says: “One of the principal findings was that the classic so-called missionary position, which is so easy on earth when gravity pushes one downwards, is simply not possible.”

Gah! So what are the positions? And where can I get one of those “inflatable tunnels”?

Original: craschworks - comments

Tags: , ,

Comments:

From:hhallahh
Date:December 10th, 2007 09:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I imagine that any variant of "girl on top" would work well.

Doggy style wouldn't, and would probably have hilarious results..

Those are the only broad types I can think of.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:zarex
Date:December 10th, 2007 09:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hoax, unfortunately
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 10th, 2007 10:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
D'oh. Thanks!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:evelynne
Date:December 10th, 2007 10:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hoax or not, I'm trying to imagine what would happen depending what position was attempted. Doggie-style seems simplest, since you can hold on at the hips while moving, and brace the front of your knees on the back of hers for a little leverage, maybe? But I'd imagine you'd be bouncing around a lot unless your forward and backward thrusts all had the exact same vector to them (so you go forward, back, forward, back (perhaps on a diagonal plane) and essentially remain in place). And of course you have to factor in all the laughing.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:cjsmith
Date:December 10th, 2007 10:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Some variant of face to face where the woman's legs can wrap around and hook at the ankles might also work well.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:evillinn
Date:December 10th, 2007 10:52 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm glad that someone else had the "who cares if its a hoax, this is interesting to figure out!" thought process.

I'm thinking there would be missionary positions possible if the woman is, again, able to hook her ankles and there are bars around for either or both happy scientists to hang on to. I would think this would work with notable levels of giggling fits.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 10th, 2007 11:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I imagine it could be simulated to some extent in a pool. Put on some scuba gear, and voila! I suspect you could clinch each others upper torsos, and bump and grind below without any net production of force.

I volunteer for the preliminary trials!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:hhallahh
Date:December 10th, 2007 11:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
With regard to doggy style, I could see two problems:

1) Girl can't control her own forward momentum

2) It'd be difficult for the guy to control the momentum of his own thrusts, he'd either be unable to do it very well or he'd go bouncing across the room. Trying to prevent this would probably be great exercise, though.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:evelynne
Date:December 10th, 2007 11:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hm, good points. Although realistically they'd end up hitting a wall almost immediately, I think, so if she braced herself on the wall or grabbed ahold of something they could both manage some leverage.

It's far more fun to imagine a room the size of a football stadium, though, where you may never hit a wall and have to figure something else out. I suspect that the Tab A/Slot B aspect would keep them stuck together, but I have visions of both partners being completely sprawled out in crazy directions otherwise.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:December 10th, 2007 11:05 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Indeed, the potential for comedy is incredibly high.

Now I wanna make the first space porno.

How much are the vomit comet rides again?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:bandicoot
Date:January 9th, 2008 06:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
All they'd have to do is wear velcro slippers or put their feet into loops on a wall/floor surface to make any of the standing positions easy. A stepped surface or velcro bands on the knees would take case of others.

The idea of sex whilst floating around without knee/elbow pads and helmets, though, is silly. Come to think of it, the idea of sex whilst floating around with knee/elbow pads and helmets is pretty silly, too ;)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:crasch
Date:January 10th, 2008 02:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
the idea of sex whilst floating around with knee/elbow pads and helmets is pretty silly, too

"Sex: the expense is damnable, the position is ridiculous, and the pleasure fleeting." -- Samuel Johnson (attributed; I have no idea who actually said it)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)