Making Babies In Space May Not Be Easy

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."'"

Comments

The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Goldberg's Pants]

Zero gravity probably makes the actual copulation bit kinda tricky too.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Anonymous Coward]

cleaning up afterward might also be a bitch

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Brian Gordon]

They should contact the Mile High Club to send over some representatives

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[RuBLed]

at least no one will hear them scream...

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Sumbius]

Space Corp directive 34124. 'No officer with false teeth should attempt oral sex in zero gravity.'

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Pieroxy]

You bet! Even in space, you still need one of these things called a woman to make a baby! Even on earth, we are as a group unable to get our hands on one, just imagine in space where they are a rarity...

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[ZosX]

I love it when they scream, really gets me going....

Oh wait, we were talking about sex.....

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Cstryon]

Problem (Kinda) solved ^_^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2suit

Also, the issue of reproduction in microgravity is old news, though TFA may just be adding tangible evidence to a theorized issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_space

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[zonker]

Making space babies may not be easy but it will at least be fun. ;P

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[houstonbofh]

cleaning up afterward might also be a bitch

But no worries about who sleeps in the wet spot...

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[houstonbofh]

Zero gravity probably makes the actual copulation bit kinda tricky too.

I would love to see the NASA training budget for this one!

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[dov_0]

Zero gravity probably makes the actual copulation bit kinda tricky too.

I would love to see the NASA training budget for this one!

They could probably double their budget easily if they involved selected senators in the "training sessions"...

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Darinbob]

That's what the handcuffs are for.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[fractoid]

Why did I have to spend all my mod points? :(

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Trahloc]

Or got certain individuals from the private sector sent up and made it PPV.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[MartinSchou]

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.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[CarpetShark]

But no worries about who sleeps in the wet spot...

Indeed. In space, everyone sleeps in the rain.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[bytesex]

Just put a condom on man ! Oh wait.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[cashman73]

Well, damn! That would rule out CowboyNeal from participating,... not to mention 99.9% of all slashdotters,...

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[mcgrew]

I'd sure like to try. Zero G sex? Sounds awesome.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[UncHellMatt]

I would humbly like to volunteer myself to NASA as a test subject in just such a study. Being the selfless individual I am, and in the interests of Humanity and furthering our knowledge of space based copulation, I would also suggest Felicia Day as my co-participant.

In the name of science, of course.

Please?

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[mcgrew]

Or who's on top.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[tsalmark]

I also do not want to be involved in any false teeth oral sex. Whats the median age for false teeth again?

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[fastest fascist]

And in space, no-one can hear "eww" screams.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Rallion]

To cope with this problem, a couple actually developed a two-person 'intimacy suit'. For real. It seems like I'm joking but I'm not.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[navyjeff]

I imagine it would look a lot like the slow-mo sequences in Behind The Green Door.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero gravity probably makes the actual copulation bit kinda tricky too.

I'm thinking bungie cords!

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Anonymous Coward]

And unstrapped breasts do *amazing* things in zero gravity.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[cayenne8]

Why don't they just cut out the middle steps, and have a couple fuck and get pregnant on the space station? Just figure out the safety window to come back to earth for the birth if they wish...

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[nizo]

Which makes me believe that, while the outcome is less likely to be successful, we will more than make up for it in increased hot and sweaty zero-g action.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[skeeto]

That's why they invented the 2suit.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[DrVomact]

Bungee cords.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[spyfrog]

I think you just have predicted the next reality show.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[SleazyRidr]

Zero gravity probably makes the actual copulation the best fun ever!

Fix'd that for you.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[32771]

Thats what love handles are for.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[ArsonSmith]

but I think his mass generates close to 1G anyway so all else excused it he just might work.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[PachmanP]

I'd sure like to try. sex? Sounds awesome.

There fixed that for...me :(

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[Antique Geekmeister]

First, because the man will have probably have to wear chilled underwear all day. Testicles do not dangle in zero gee, so they reach an unusually high temperature and fertility drops considerably.

Second, at least according to the astronaut who spoke in college years ago, most if not all of the women in space were either past menopause, or had had hysterectomies. That wasn't just to avoid fertility issues: according to her, menstruation upon return to earth nearly killed the first Soviet female astronaut. She kept bleeding and required extensive medical support to survive. It's been years since: perhaps NASA has learned some lessons to ease the problems, but hormonal swings of any sort among very busy, very overworked astronauts is asking to waste a lot of time and a lot of taxpayer money.

Re:The beginning bit is probably tricky too

[RockDoctor]

First, because the man will have probably have to wear chilled underwear all day. Testicles do not dangle in zero gee, so they reach an unusually high temperature and fertility drops considerably.

That bollocks dangle in an attempt to maintain a lower temperature than the body is true (for most but not all mammals) ; but that's because the dangling will get them away from the body and out to "hanging down/ swinging free/ oscillating merrily" (to quote an old and rude song).
To demonstrate that this is an issue, you'd have to provide evidence that free-balling men have a significantly higher fertility on average than non-free-ballers. Journal, volume and page please. (It's not that I don't believe that you're probably correct ; but I do doubt that the effect is powerful. Particularly since the temperature difference between balls hanging free in space and balls hanging in a pair of trousers is not likely to be large. "Significant" is the word.)

Second, at least according to the astronaut who spoke in college years ago, most if not all of the women in space were either past menopause, or had had hysterectomies.

I've never heard this before. Citable evidence please.

That wasn't just to avoid fertility issues: according to her, menstruation upon return to earth nearly killed the first Soviet female astronaut. She kept bleeding and required extensive medical support to survive.

I've never heard this before. Citable evidence please.
Further, it's decidedly implausible as discussed after your next point.

It's been years since: perhaps NASA has learned some lessons to ease the problems, but hormonal swings of any sort among very busy, very overworked astronauts is asking to waste a lot of time and a lot of taxpayer money.

Which has been managed for decades by careful application of off-the-shelf contraceptive pills, to select the time that the women in question have their periods. B a l e n t i n a _ T e r e shh o v a _ _ (isn't it time that SlashCode got it's internationalisation together?) was part of a five-strong cadre of trainee female cosmonauts, so you can bet that they'd have been manipulated to be on different cycles, if this was thought to have been of any significance. (That word again!) So I think, simply on that basis, that it's unlikely that they'd have sent a woman up who was about to have her period.
Again, that's if they thought that it was likely to be significant. OK, B a l e n t i n a _ T e r e shh o v a _ _ was the first, so maybe they wouldn't have known. But if it had been a discovery, then there is likely to have been mention of it.

Would they not have known about the possibility of excessive bleeding, presumably as a result of the high G of the descent? To quote the Wikipedia page, "Training included weightless flights, isolation tests, centrifuge tests, rocket theory, spacecraft engineering, 120 parachute jumps and pilot training". So, do you seriously think that the Russian army/ air force/ paratroop forces are unaware of the consequences of multi-G loads on the delicate female anatomy at that time of the month.
Being married to one Russian lady, and having worked with several others, I find the concept of them accepting (let alone asking for) some sort of special consideration for being a delicate little lady ... well, I'd rather that you put your balls into that particular spike-jawed vice ; I may not particularly attached to mine, but I foresee pain as the lovely little ladies realise what you're trying to suggest. Being female and being feminine does not mean being personally soft. The implication that they might not be "the right stuff" because they'd let something like their blood chemistry get the better of their wills ... I really would recommend that you choose your audience for that sort of attitude with more care.

The story doesn't fly, on several levels. Citable evidence, please.

Where can I find results of all those experiments?

[bogaboga]

Folks at NASA have been running experiments in space for decades....where can I find results of all those experiments? Or was it money down the drain?

May not be easy...

[Chris Burke]

... but I'm willing to try!

Re:May not be easy...

[Tablizer]

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..."
   

Re:May not be easy...

[Big Nothing]

All you have to do is find the G-spot, and it'll all be ok.

Re:May not be easy...

[CarpetShark]

All you have to do is find the G-spot, and it'll all be ok.

A geek needs to find the g-spot for us to be OK? ZOMG, we're doomed!

Re:May not be easy...

[MyLongNickName]

Tasha: "But at the rate you do it, that could take HOURS".

Reproduction in space

[Announcer]

There have been all too many jokes about this topic. It is good to see some serious thought and discussion about it.

Since "artificial gravity" is easily created with rotation, conception and pregnancy would have to be within a rotating chamber at least until the embryo develops far enough to tolerate zero-G without adverse effects.

Re:Reproduction in space

[Anonymous Coward]

Either that, or just send the Octomom into space. Babies flying everywhere!

Re:Reproduction in space

[ZosX]

Humans cannot withstand long term micro-gravity. Period. After about a year in space you cannot walk when you land on earth. Our equilibrium depends on gravity too. 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 really doubt we would mutate fast enough to take advantage of weightlessness to survive.

Re:Reproduction in space

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans cannot withstand long term micro-gravity. Period. After about a year in space you cannot walk when you land on earth.

Those two statements are completely unrelated.

I really doubt we would mutate fast enough to take advantage of weightlessness to survive.

Nobody cares about your doubts. 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.

Re:Reproduction in space

[MaskedSlacker]

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.

Re:Reproduction in space

[fractoid]

Humans cannot withstand long term micro-gravity. Period.

There's your problem. You're not pregnant until you STOP having periods.

Re:Reproduction in space

[AmiMoJo]

The reason given for not having artificial gravity by rotating the ISS and other platforms is that the extra strain it puts on the structure puts it in danger of being shaken apart.

I can't see how they intend to get to Mars and back without it though, because even with regular exercise there is still muscle degradation in space.

Re:Reproduction in space

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we could survive in micro-gravity, but after spending years, or generations like you're talking about, up there, we could not survive in normal G.

Just imagine it. We would be creating a sub-race of pale, blubbery humans that will never be able to go outside and feel the warmth of the sun, on this planet or any other. They would be forced to live their lives vicariously through highly advanced computers and... well it would pretty much just be slashdot, but with more floating. Sign me up!

Re:Reproduction in space

[Ephemeriis]

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.

Re:Reproduction in space

[natehoy]

Well, another good reason for not introducing gravity into the ISS is because many/most of the experiments done there are microgravity experiments. Why spend all the money to get up there and then make the environment just like Earth? Rather defeats the point.

It's like city folk moving up here to Maine then expecting town water, town sewer, natural gas pipelines, and all that newfangled infrastructure nonsense. You spent a shitload of money and moved up for the environment because it's better than home. You're more than welcome to stay, but if you preferred everything back in the City you might want to consider moving back. Not that we want you to leave, but we don't want to change the nature of the entire town just to make you happy. :)

Re:Reproduction in space

[AmiMoJo]

I think that was the problem, they wanted only part of it with gravity and the constant rotation of one part would cause vibrations and stress. It's pretty much an all-or-nothing deal at the moment, and the all option has it's own issues like solar panels only getting 50% as much light etc.

Re:Reproduction in space

[thecod]

Who modded this informative!?

Re:Reproduction in space

[DrVomact]

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?

Yeah, and I know the exact demographic who would be interested in this: baby boomers. My body is starting to age, and gravity is definitely being more of a drag every day. So what we need are "retirement homes" in space. It would not be difficult to explain the benefits of weightlessness to the average decrepit guy or sagging woman, and this demographic has money. So...the way to get the space program kick-started is to take up a collection, and fund a private company to build space habits for people who want to stay there permanently. Because zero gravity has drawbacks, the habitats could be spun to simulate some gravity. It would be ideal! Even most totally crippled people could move around normally. For those who prefer solid ground under their feet, we'd have the Lunatic Home...er "Serenity Gardens on Luna". Heck I'm serious—I'd invest in such a venture.

Re:Reproduction in space

[einhverfr]

Probably the same one who modded my "a salt-end battery" joke informative.

Modding has gone even further downhill here in the last year.

Re:Reproduction in space

[fractoid]

Who modded this informative!?

The guy who was asking "do y'all think tha babby is drinkin' all tha blood?"

Re:Reproduction in space

[Anonymous Coward]

Grants karma, funny does not.

So, what I read is..

[Anonymous Coward]

a) sex in space: easy
b) consequences of sex in space: non-existant

I am pleased.

Re:So, what I read is..

[MarkRose]

Until you get space AIDS -- Andromeda immunodeficiency strain. Did you never read classic Crichton?

Re:So, what I read is..

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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..

[Hadlock]

I am trying to tag this article "birthcontrol" but article tagging is apparently disabled for firefox 3.0 users.

Re:So, what I read is..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like I'll be taking my next date to space. Awww... who am I kidding, I'm posting on /.

Re:So, what I read is..

[feepness]

The pope won't be.

Hey, they said "don't spill it on the ground". There's nothing about spilling it into little floating pearls.

Re:So, what I read is..

[machine321]

The pope won't be.
Look for Casti Conubbi II - no sex in space on pain of excommunication.

Ex communication is always a pain when sex was involved. Especially when it was with the Pope.

Re:So, what I read is..

[dkleinsc]

The real question is what the Space Pope thinks, though. Besides not dating robots, of course.

Re:So, what I read is..

[cashman73]

Until you get space AIDS -- Andromeda immunodeficiency strain. Did you never read classic Crichton?

But, I heard that only affects members of the GNAA. So the rest of us should be immune, right? =)

Re:So, what I read is..

[Anonymous Coward]

sex in space on pain of excommunication

Deal!

You had me at sex. The excommunication part is just a bonus.

Re:So, what I read is..

[elrous0]

That feature has always been wonky in Firefox (for me anyway). Kind of weird considering the percentage of /.er's who use Firefox.

Re:So, what I read is..

[fastest fascist]

I can see it now, the catholic church in 3rd world countries preaching abstinence from space sex as a means of avoiding AIDS. At least they can expect to have a reasonable rate of conformance to that rule.

Logic fail.

[Thantik]

Randomly changing the directions of gravity != no gravity. Logic fail.

If I put an egg into a blender, I'm pretty sure it'd have a hard time forming a chicken too.

Re:Logic fail.

[Sumbius]

Randomly changing the directions of gravity != no gravity.p>

If you happen to find a place that is not affected by gravity please inform me immidietly. I'm sure many physichist would be interested.

Re:Logic fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. This is just scary-bad science. Rotating a flask does not impose zero G on it's contents. This journal is using jokes of editors if this made it past their peer review.

Re:Logic fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe if you go in a direction commonly known as "Up" for several miles you can find a spot that isn't affected by gravity very much.

Re:Logic fail.

[X0563511]

That wasn't so hard...

Re:Logic fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

zero-g != no gravitational effects affecting the target.

Re:Logic fail.

[Jared555]

at the space station you are actually still significantly affected by the earth's gravity.... I think it is still well over half the normal amount.

Re:Logic fail.

[jesser]

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.

Re:Logic fail.

[izomiac]

If you are outside the atmosphere, and not accelerating then you're basically in free fall. 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). I suppose tidal forces and the gravity caused by nearby matter might be detectable, but it's so small as to be ignorable for anything but research on gravity. From a biological perspective there is no discernible effect due to gravity. Given that gravity is practically the only (essential) constant across the entire biosphere I'm a little surprised that there aren't more ill effects due to its absence.

Re:Logic fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

There exists a point on the line between the Earth and the Moon where the gravity of both cancels out.

Re:Logic fail.

[maxwell demon]

As soon as you are in free fall, you're not affected by gravity (at least not in a significant way). This holds everywhere, but to experience free fall for longer time, you have to leave the Earth's atmosphere.

Re:Logic fail.

[jopsen]

If GPs statement is true:

Randomly changing the directions of gravity != no gravity.

How is gravity in all directions = no gravity ?

Re:Logic fail.

[X0563511]

The vectors all add up to (near enough) 0?

Re:Logic fail.

[MaskedSlacker]

Yes, but if you are co-moving with the space station there is no effect in your reference frame--which is what matters in terms of biological processes.

A reference frame in free fall is indistinguishable from one in zero-g(also called the equivalence principle).

So yes, gravity still effects you--that is why you're in an orbit. But it doesn't have the effects it has on you when you are in the non-inertial reference frame that is the surface of the earth (in particular, it doesn't pull your organs towards your toes).

Re:Logic fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Randomly changing the directions of gravity != no gravity. Logic fail.

No. The failure is in your understanding of physics.

Google the dude Einstein and become enlightened.

Re:Logic fail.

[Roger W Moore]

Right. Consider some indentical twins. Suppose one twin runs 30km in a loop and end up back where he started while the other twin just sat there waiting for him. In both cases each twin's net displacement, velocity and acceleration are all zero so clearly, biologically, they should both be in the same state right and the twin that ran the 30km should be as well rested as the one that just sat there?

Re:Logic fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

I could get a good look at a butcher by sticking a T-Bone up a bulls ass but I'd rather take the....Oh damnit.

Re:Logic fail.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that make any sort of sense to anyone else?

It's more like two equally strong twins playing tug of war with a very sturdy rope. The rope's not going to move, so why not just leave it lying on the ground? If lying on the ground is outer space, then the twins are the machine. What matters is that it replicates the conditions of the other.

Re:Logic fail.

[tburkhol]

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 gravity" because no contact force opposes your acceleration. "Gravity in a single random direction that changes all the time so it averages out to zero" is like "no gravity" in that the body maintains is distance from the nearest, largest body, but it is not like "no gravity" in that there is a physical force (viscosity) acting against the gravitational acceleration.

Re:Logic fail.

[elrous0]

Sure, but it's the perfect way to ensure that the chicken you create is a real badass.

Re:Logic fail.

[holmstar]

Except that in this experiment, something was opposing the acceleration of the cells, a viscous fluid. Thus is it NOT the same as microgravity.

Re:Logic fail.

[BlackSnake112]

Would the area far between galaxies count? Or is that still a free fall? You would be so far away from any gravitational forces.

Then again that far away from everything you would be frozen solid. Or the heaters would be on full all the time.

Re:Logic fail.

[DriedClexler]

If I put an egg into a blender, I'm pretty sure it'd have a hard time forming a chicken too.

That's because you're not being creative enough. Make the resulting goo into something a chicken will eat, and feed it to a pregnant hen. Bam, a blended egg turns into a chicken.

With apologies to some smart physicist that made some quip about life, entropy, and irreversibility, thereby giving me that idea...

Re:Logic fail.

[Roger W Moore]

Come on X0563511. We are talking about the physics of the situation here, and your post is the one that makes no sense. The point I am making is that there is a difference between averaging to zero (the running around the track case or rotating the sample) and actually having the vector remain zero (the staying put case or true zero-g).

childish question

[RuBLed]

If I put an egg into a blender, I'm pretty sure it'd have a hard time forming a chicken too.

Why?

Re:childish question

[ZackSchil]

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.

Re:childish question

[TeXMaster]

Why can't I mod you +2 Funny AND Informative?

Re:childish question

[clarkkent09]

No, no, what parent had in mind was a combination incubator/blender appliance = instant fresh chicken pâté.

Re:childish question

[SCVirus]

You can, it merely requires two accounts with mod points.

Re:childish question

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, since he posted, that would also require a third account.

Re:childish question

[Hamoohead]

So if the blender weighs less than a chicken. . .

The challenge

[symbolset]

The challenge - it's most of the fun.

I'm sure these studies have been thoughtfully conducted and documented, though not announced, and the results were satisfactory. Humans being mammals, curious and intelligent wouldn't avoid this opportunity for experimentation even if directly ordered not to.

There is no reason to expect that their clinostat successfully captures the essence of the problem. Obviously a thorough study of 0-G human gestation will be undertaken as soon as the mission constraints allow it, whether it's in the mission plan or not. The kind of folks who venture out aren't the sort to avoid this question. If it turns out the results are unsatisfactory we will of course find a solution. We must.

Re:The challenge

[Runaway1956]

"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.

Re:The challenge

[poetmatt]

That's what I wondered. Is a Clinostat truly something that can be considered accurate for comparison to space? Or is this akin to saying product x is close enough to product y?

From what I read, it doesn't seem to be equivalent to weightless space.

Re:The challenge

[MindKata]

"The researchers are probably pretty smart people," and "forces may cumulatively add up to zero"

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 would affect or even damage the samples if we were to say, for example heat the samples to +100C above what they should be and -100C below what they should be. So even though it could be said on average they were at the temperature they should be, its very obvious the peak differences are also important not *just* the average. Same goes for gravity applied to the samples.

It really gets to me, the number of articles we see where some effect is used to mimic something else in an attempt to create a simulation, yet they assume all their results must be accurate. Why do they fail so often to question the limits of their simulation. It should be drummed into their heads, its a simulation and simulations have limits to what they can simulate.

Re:The challenge

[machine321]

I have a Clinostat at home, and no, it's not really accurate.

Re:The challenge

[tburkhol]

The first difference between a clinostat and zero G is shear force. In a clinostat, the cells, or embryos, or whatever, are perpetually falling through the liquid medium. They don't settle because the viscous fluid forces counter the gravitational force.

The second difference is that the cells, or embryos, or whatever, never get to adhere to a surface. For most cells, adhesion forces are 100-1000x gravitational forces and really important. Non-adherent cells undergo anoikis.

Clinostat is a good model of zero-G for certain situations, but like all experimental models, you have to understand the differences between your model and the real thing

Re:The challenge

[gtbritishskull]

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.

Re:The challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how smart they are, they have proved they have a flaw in their logic

Yes, it couldn't possibly be that space launches are expensive and thus they figured they would get the result from the next best thing before booking the ISS for a more rigorous study...

For the coders out there, when you write a complicated application engine, do you try and do the whole thing in one go and then hope it works when you run the binary, or do you start simple and then gradually expand your app in features and functionality testing it while you code ? Experimental science work the same way. You don't blow your entire budget and any chance on to get further funding on an experiment that may be a fantastic fiasco without having a good set of experiments to suggest it may be worthwhile. This experiment may not be perfect, but it does suggest that doing the same thing on the ISS might be worth it.

Re:The challenge

[interploy]

Look, we all know there's only one way to be sure. We need a pair of volunteers willing to make the first space baby. Preferably voyeurists so we can watch... for science.

Re:The challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, I thought we're the voyeurs, not them?

Re:The challenge

[clone53421]

Cumulative Force isn't the same thing as Peak Force.

That's not what cumulative force is.

Suppose you have a point mass, and you apply three forces whose sum is zero. The point mass doesn't move, of course. Now, according to your logic, the "peak force" should be the force vector with the largest magnitude? But "peak force" is insignificant on a point mass – points are incompressible! You might think that all these forces are significant because they're "squeezing" the object, but if they're truly operating on a point-mass scale, they aren't.

Gravity is a continuous field – it operates on matter as if it was made up of point masses. As long as every point in an object is undergoing exactly the same set of forces, the net effect is zero. The catch would be if a point on one side of an object undergoes different forces than a point elsewhere in the object – then the different forces cause internal stresses (compression or tension). Since gravity is so weak, the gradient is so low that the amount of internal stress it causes is negligible. A centrifuge with a short arm would be more affected by this; the effect can be lessened by lengthening the arm.

Re:The challenge

[BradleyAndersen]

I've had mod points 9 (yes, NINE) times in the last 4 weeks (unfortunately!) ... and when I really need some, I don't have any. You've hit it on the head.

Re:The challenge

[Megatron3W]

We won't know how it affects humans until we send a girl up there to get knocked up and see what happens.

Shall we call getting it on in space the G Spot club? as an homage to the Mile high club?

Re:The challenge

[aibob]

We won't know how it affects humans until we send a girl up there to get knocked up and see what happens.

Absolutely . . . but then we won't sure until we get a statistically significant sample of those. I'm trying hard to imagine how to put that in a grant.

Re:The challenge

[treeves]

It's offtopic, but I know what you mean: I didn't keep track like you did, but I had mod points many times in the last month, and whenever I get them, I feel compelled to use them up, and of course, I can't comment in the threads where I've moderated.

Re:The challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

I first read your last sentence as:
"It should be drummed into their heads, its a stimulation and stimulations have limits to what they can stimulate."

What I read seemed so much more in tune with the subject matter at hand...

Re:The challenge

[zobier]

Stuff the grant, sell videos of it.

Re:The challenge

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm sorry, but please return to Physics 101. _Force_ on a point mass is just that, force, it adds energy, momentum, and excitement to high-energy physics. _Pressure_ on a point mass would be nearly irrelevant due to the small cross section, but force on a small mass is what makes bullets more dangerous than bricks. But unfortunately, there is no such thing in the real world as a "point mass". There are quanta, but those can be described as having an effective radius due to Schroedinger's indertiminacy effects. These effectively "fuzz" small enough objects, as the energy to measure their teeny edges affects them more and more.

That bit about "the gradient is so low for gravity" can, in fact, cause noticeable effects. It creates tides.

Re:The challenge

[clone53421]

_Force_ on a point mass is just that, force, it adds energy, momentum, and excitement to high-energy physics. _Pressure_ on a point mass would be nearly irrelevant due to the small cross section, but force on a small mass is what makes bullets more dangerous than bricks.

That makes no sense. Please explain what you're trying to say. Pressure and force can mean exactly the same thing (and no, I don't mean fluid pressure, which is something different).

But unfortunately, there is no such thing in the real world as a "point mass". There are quanta, but those can be described as having an effective radius due to Schroedinger's indertiminacy effects. These effectively "fuzz" small enough objects, as the energy to measure their teeny edges affects them more and more.

And this is significant why?

That bit about "the gradient is so low for gravity" can, in fact, cause noticeable effects. It creates tides.

You completely missed the point. I was saying that the molecules at the tip of your head are affected in virtually the same way as the molecules in the soles of your feet. In fact, you could climb the highest mountain you could find and the effect of gravity would only be very imperceptibly less. If you were standing in a centrifuge, your entire body would not feel exactly the same G-force, because a point on the outside of the centrifuge (where your feet are) is spinning faster than one on the inside (where the rest of you is).

Re:The challenge

[Antique Geekmeister]

Oh, my. Sorry for the late reply, I missed the notice that you'd replied.

Pressure is most certainly _not_ force. Even the units are different

Pressure = Force / surface area
Force = mass * acceleration
Energy = force * distance

Pressure and force are _never_ exactly the same thing, at least if you're using scientific or engineering terms.

Now, it's fun to think mathematically about "what happens if you apply pressure to a point mass". And as you point out, nothing would happen. But _force_ most certainly can be applied: it happens all the time, because it is a mass (gravity applies, as does EM and possibly others, depending on the model). And even pressure has real world effects on what one might normally think of as a "point mass", such as a single quantum, because Schroedinger indeterminacy smears out the spatial location of even that "point mass". The results are fascinating fun, but they turn theoretical arguments based on a pure "point mass" into weird descriptions that lose real-world validity as they descend into the quantum realm trying to describe that "point mass". I hope that makes what I'm saying more clear? I can try again if it would help.

And as for tides: sir or madam, tides even in smaller objects can be "noticeable". Just because it's swamped by the primary gravitational force for a small object on the earth's surface doesn't mean it's not "noticeable". Tides are just such an effect, and they're quite noticeable.

The effect in a small centrifuge is just as you describe. It's many orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational tides, even for something as large as Earth. You're quite correct. But again, that does not mean the gravitational differentials are not "noticeable".

Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[QuantumG]

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.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[Jared555]

What about low gravity environments (a base on the moon, mars, etc.), how are you going to counter the effects of that?

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[QuantumG]

Perhaps first we should find any evidence that we need to.. and soft landing pregnant mice on the Moon sounds a lot more sensible way to get that evidence.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[laejoh]

problem: humans lose boner mass in zero-g

There, I corrected it for you. It was about the problems with sex in space, no?

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have evidence either way on partial g. There's also no real consensus on the outcome, so we've really got the next round of lunar flights to look forward on that front.

If I had to take a completely unscientific guess the bone mass loss will be measurable, but nowhere near the levels we see in micro-gravity and most of the other problems will disappear (thinking along the lines that bone mass is probably connected largely to use, but other factors are more or less an on off switch as to whether things fall in the right direction).

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[R3d M3rcury]

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.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[kestasjk]

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.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[fractoid]

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*

[fractoid]

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*

[DerekLyons]

Using acceleration to counteract undesirable effects of microgravity appears to be a universally ignored solution.

It's not ignored - it's turned out to be devilishly difficult to arrange.
 
 

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.

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.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[jmv]

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).

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[jeti]

Tethering a capsule to the burned out upper stage of the rocket and spinning it up is neither hard nor expensive.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[DarkOx]

I am not suggesting that your point is without merit or that the best solution to long space deployments might not be to create artificial gravity as as you correctly point out it could kill a whole flock of birds with one stone but there are other considerations.

Physicists still don't entirely understand the force of gravity. It might be that simulating the macro effects of it with acceleration does not solve some problems on the micro and smaller scales.

Energy in space is generally at a premium, yes you can get a good deal of power from solar but you need that for other things. If an artificial gravity solution is to expensive in those terms the other options might not be so brain dead.

What happens when if artificial gravity fails. If operation of other equipment is totally dependent on it; can you get it restarted? You might need to be able to say transfer propellant in order to accelerate something.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[kestasjk]

I guess the engineers are just too stupid to figure that out? When it is the best solution it will be used..

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[drinkypoo]

You do it with a tether, and the two ends of the "ship" rotate around each other like the two ends of Discovery in 2010, except on purpose. Crew is at one end with the life support and some propulsion, while more propulsion and everything else is located at the other end.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[dkf]

We don't have evidence either way on partial g. There's also no real consensus on the outcome, so we've really got the next round of lunar flights to look forward on that front.

Mod parent up. Though theoretically we could build a spinning orbital station to do the testing too. No idea if going to the moon is cheaper.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[shrykk]

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).

Sure, you wouldn't want your tiny space station spinning around at a huge rate to create 1G at the circumference.

But it's easier for spacecraft, and we're not talking Babylon 5's gigantic ships with rotating segments either. You can use a counterweight on a tether, creating a much larger orbit, to reduce these effects.

For example, Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan, the plan to establish multiple Mars visits using currently-available rocketry, suggested retaining part of the final rocket stage to use as a counterweight. The manned module would spin about the combined centre of gravity for the months-long journey to Mars, then the counterweight would be discarded.

Using a tether has problems of its own, but it might be a good solution if we're to go out and explore the solar system without radical new methods of propulsion.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[evilWurst]

Because it might turn out that sitting around for 30 minutes a day at >1g is enough to spend the rest of the day at 0g? Which would mean you could get away with a smaller centrifuge that you put the astronauts through in shifts, which is a lot cheaper than spinning the whole station?

You'd only be able to test that kind of thing if you have the ability to put then through the other 23.5 hours/day in 0g for long enough to get useful muscle and bone mass checks after the test (to see if it was working).

Although I suppose the ground based test might still be useful for other things - like seeing if you can stimulate increased bone density. Then maybe you could spend a month "storing up" excess before going into space...

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not have much experience with the aerospace industry. The best solution is not always the solution used. Come to think of it, that follows in most US industries.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the engineers are just too stupid to figure that out? When it is the best solution it will be used..

It has nothing to do with either the intellectual capacity of aerospace engineers or even if it is the best solution. It won't simply happen until someone both in the market for spacecraft, and capable of paying for it, asks some aerospace engineers to design a build this type of vehicle. Currently everyone has been asking for simple capsules or Space Shuttles space vechicles, so not surprisingly that's what the aerospace engineers produce!

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[Nadaka]

It actually won't be hard to build a 1 g environment on mars for a sufficiently small environment. We already have examples of increasing the perception of gravity on the surface of a planet in every theme-park and county fair on earth.

All you have to do is attach a "room pod" to the end of a boom and spin the boom until the room reaches 1g. Probably not practical for an entire colony, but it would be easy enough to do for sleeping quarters and a rec room.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[grgyle]

Quick, Robin! To the conception capsule!

*na na na na na, na na na na ....*

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[DerekLyons]

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

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.

When performing a related set of experiments, it's generally good science to conduct all the experiments on identical equipment under identical circumstances. A low G (3G) centrifuge on the earth's surface won't produce [simulated] gravity purely in the plane of rotation like one in orbit will - there'll be a vector produced by the earth's gravity. Presumably the scientists who thought up the experiment thought this to be important and worth the many limitations involved.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[dpilot]

How about the other type of tether - the long one. (gravity-gradient) There were supposed to be 3 shuttle experiments with tethers, and at last report I think they'd done the first and smallest, and had trouble with the second. (snarling/breakage?)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989fmet.symp..149L
http://www.satobs.org/tss.html
http://code8100.nrl.navy.mil/programs/tips.htm

The actual shuttle experiments seem to be concerned with "dropping" a probe into the very upper atmosphere for measurments and observation. The third reference, non-shuttle deployed, seems to be materials/duration research.

None seem interested in generating effective gravity or skyhooks/pinwheels.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[petermgreen]

A centrifuge should work for creating an "eath gravity" environment on the moon or mars. You would just have to angle your living pods such that it's floor was in line with the resultant of the centrifugal force and the moons gravity. Most likely the best way to do this would be to design the pods to self align with the force on them by putting them on a pivot above thier center of mass (the big advantage of this method is that you can slow down and stop without changing which direction is down inside the pods).

You may also need to make the centrifuge quite big to reduce the force gradiants.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[dpilot]

Building it and spinning it up are the easy parts.

Doing anything with it once you've spun it up is the hard part. At the very least, it's intuitively obvious that you want 2 tethers and 2 tethered objects, along with a hub that stays in fixed position, only rotating. Even with that, I'd be inclined to keep the hub fully stationary and have a rotating bearing at the end of a boom. With this "simple" setup you only have the problem of dynamics of mass in tethered objects - like people walking around, standing up, laying down, etc. Did I mention that the boom probably needs provisions to flex, because there's no way to react fast enough for the needed dynamic balance in a semi-rigid system. Even what I suggested ignores the dirty details - it's just one step more practical/complicated than simply spinning up 2 tethered objects.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[DerekLyons]

Even though they aren't directly interested in generating 'G' forces, they all suffer from the same problems outlined in my original post WRT deployment, retrieval, and maneuvering with the tether deployed.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[Thaelon]

it's REALLY difficult to prevent snarls during retraction

Couldn't they just use a winch with the cable fed through a pair of rollers with brakes on them to keep the cable from piling up in the winch?

Or reel it in from both ends while its still spinning (to keep some small amount of tension on it) and apply counter-spin thrust to keep the RPMs constant as radius decreases?

Granted none of this seems trivial, but not does it seem that difficult.

Or gyros to eat up the momentum?

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[einhverfr]

Um.... I don't think you understand the problem.

If you throw a cable off a bridge and start to winch it up, the gravity adds tension to the cable and prevents snarls.

In zero g, with no air resistance, all you have is Newton's First Law working against you. Worse, any tension in the tether (from, say, rotation) ends up propelling the tether back towards you.

I see two solutions to this problem and neither one is trivial. The first is replacing a tether with a folding arm. The big issues with this are obvious. However, a folding arm might do well to CONTAIN a tether, providing some regidity.

The second soluton would be have the tether end begin propelling itself away from the craft prior to disengagement by emitting nitrogen gas or something. This strikes me as a very bad idea.

Really the only solution I can think of is a folding/locking arm which would house a tether and provide control for retracting it. This is still not without problems, some of them serious, but it avoids the snarl problem.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[DerekLyons]

Couldn't they just use a winch with the cable fed through a pair of rollers with brakes on them to keep the cable from piling up in the winch?

So what happens to the loose end of cable at the far end? Remember there's no gravity to keep things tidy. (Just the release of tension when one unit disengages from the cable can cause some nasty effects.)
 

Or reel it in from both ends while its still spinning (to keep some small amount of tension on it) and apply counter-spin thrust to keep the RPMs constant as radius decreases?

So long as both vehicles involved accurately know their distance from the barycenter, can accurately (to within less than 1 FPS) throttle their RCS, and have thrusters that only produce a vector in the desired direction (rarer than you might think)...
 

Granted none of this seems trivial, but not does it seem that difficult.

It never seems difficult to the armchair engineer.

Re:Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do *this*

[dpilot]

I wasn't minimizing the problems, and by the way, you forgot arcing, which is what killed one of the tether experiments. My first reference also talks about the difficulties the tether caused to the shuttle navigation systems, by giving it a small continuous forward "thrust".

However, I would consider tethers to be a technology problem, and while there are difficulties, we've worked our way around far bigger ones. The real question is if tethers can grant sufficient benefits to be worth conquering the problems.

Wired magazine disappoints again

[thenextstevejobs]

There once was a time where the mention of Wired magazine wasn't enough to ensure that the rest of the summary wasn't even worth reading, much less the linked article. I am bored to tears

Organisms that have adapted to the level of gravity here on Earth don't quite work properly when put into a different environment. Shocking

I think this is going to be a minor concern in the grand scheme of "sustaining life on space stations and other planets".

Useless.

Re:Wired magazine disappoints again

[Myrcutio]

I think this is going to be a minor concern in the grand scheme of "sustaining life on space stations and other planets".

And if this problem multiplies with successive generations? How big a problem would it be if zero-g environments reduced the rate of fecundity by 10% for every generation? That 1000 year mission to a life sustaining planet suddenly gets cut short because the population is bring halved every 50 years.
What other "obvious" problems should we not worry about when dealing with long term spaceflight?

Re:Wired magazine disappoints again

[Firethorn]

And if this problem multiplies with successive generations?

Do you have any evidence that it would? If anything, embryos with the genetics to best develop in zero-g would be strongly selected for, and the problem would go away within a few generations.

Going by the study, even if it decreases successful fertilizations by 50%, you have to remember that something like 50% of fertilizations are already unsuccessful, even removing deliberate effects like birth controls. Then consider that at one point having a dozen kids was more or less normal. Octomom is notable for doing it all at once, not for the sheer number.

Space parents might have to try for a few more months on average, but it's well within human abilities to still keep population levels up, even discounting artificial assistance.

Re:Where can I find results of all those experimen

[ZosX]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nasa+research+paper

Suggestion on where to begin

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to focus on the proper G-spot

Re:Where can I find results of all those experimen

[Anonymous Coward]

Your money's gone.... move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Where can I find results of all those experimen

[stephanruby]

where can I find results of all those experiments?

You better clear out your calendar, you have a lot reading ahead of you.

Re:Where can I find results of all those experimen

[kestasjk]

Hush, we're trying to be bitter about NASA here if you don't mind..

NASA should experiment with some...

[DogDude]

Astro-Glide!

Defying Gravity

[stephanruby]

Did anyone else think the headline was a lead-in for Defying Gravity (one of the best sci-fi dramas since Battlestar Galactica)?

Re:Defying Gravity

[darth dickinson]

Yes! Was the first thing I thought of, what with last night's episode and all. Kind of reminds me of the season of 24 recently where the bad guys had a magical device that could hack through the defenses of a nuclear power plant, and two days later there was a /. story basically saying "No, that's not possible...nothing to see here..." :P

Re:Defying Gravity

[PRMan]

I don't know. I just looked at the pilot on Hulu. Looks more like Idiocracy meets Star Trek.

Re:Defying Gravity

[russotto]

I don't know. I just looked at the pilot on Hulu. Looks more like Idiocracy meets Star Trek.

That would be an improvement. "Defying Gravity" is just a daytime soap opera with characters who work for NASA.

Re:Defying Gravity

[merreborn]

Defying Gravity (one of the best sci-fi dramas since Battlestar Galactica)?

More like one of the only sci-fi dramas since Battlestar Galactica.

The one episode I endured seemed to spend 95% of its time on the "drama", and 5% on the sci-fi. It's a soap opera in orbit.

Old story

[gobbligook]

Universe series season 3 episode 4 takes a look at this topic. Was made in 2007.

Re:Old story

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were going for "Informative" you should've included a link!:P

Re:Where can I find results of all those experimen

[Tablizer]

where can I find results of all those experiments?

Well, are you prepared to review hot, steamy monkey sex?
     

Obligatory

[jbatista]

Now we know the answer to a very recent, pertinent question: "how is babby formed?"

Re:Obligatory

[jbatista]

I mean, not the answer, but a definite step towards it.

Adopt

[lul_wat]

It's okay, I'll just adopt a baby in space instead. Space is so over populated I don't feel like I should be contributing to it.

Re:Adopt

[snspdaarf]

Madona? Is that you?

Cancelled

[ianare]

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

Dear NASA

[Comatose51]

Dear NASA,

I don't believe you. Here's $20 on you being wrong. I will fly up into space and demonstrate for you.

Do we have a bet?

PS - To make sure there are no confounds, please send up hot female astronauts to eliminate alternate explanations on why the experiment failed.

Re:Dear NASA

[dltaylor]

Typical female astronaut is healthy and fit (therefore sexually desirable), and high-achieving and intelligent. She would want you as a sexual partner WHY?

Re:Dear NASA

[MaskedSlacker]

As we learned courtesy of the Lisa Nowak incident, there's a fair amount of hanky-panky already going on between the astronauts.

Re:Dear NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

As we learned courtesy of the Lisa Nowak incident, there's a fair amount of hanky-panky already going on between the astronauts.

You missed the point of dltaylor's objection. It's not that female astronauts aren't interested in sex. Instead the question is why a health, fit, high-achieving, and intelligent woman would want to have sex with anyone who regularly posts on Slashdot?

Re:Dear NASA

[MaskedSlacker]

What if they lost a bet?

Re:Dear NASA

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they lost a bet?

I'd imagine any woman smart enough to be an astronaut would never accept a wager with potential consequences like that. Sure they take a calculated risk against possible death everytime they go into space, but we are talking about a fate worse than death.;)

Re:Dear NASA

[MaskedSlacker]

A fate worse than driving 12 hours in a diaper so you don't have to stop when you wet yourself?

We're not all CommanderTaco, you know.

Just for the record...

[IorDMUX]

...Larry Niven predicted this years ago.

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...

[DerekLyons]

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.

Re:Just for the record...

[BubbaDave]

My title would have been "Niven Nailed It"

Looks like it's going to be a retro-kind-of-day, saw a blurb on inflatable solar cells, "Tom Swift and the Space Solartron" had 'em 1st!

Dave

Re:Just for the record...

[joeyspqr]

I prefer the interpretation ... "one of his predictions has been tenatively confirmed"
full disclosure: Niven has been one of my favorite authors since I read Ringworld in the 70s

Re:Just for the record...

[DerekLyons]

Many SF fans prefer such an interpretation - because it makes SF glittery and shiny and oh so much different from the plot devices of every other genre. It's a little ray of sunshine into the nerd ghetto, a little beacon of hope.

It's also bullshit.

Full Disclosure: I'm a fan on Niven's earlier works and especially his shorts. By the early 80's he was on the skids, and by the early 90's it was all over. All that booze I suppose.

Re:Just for the record...

[Truth is life]

Many SF fans prefer such an interpretation - because it makes SF glittery and shiny and oh so much different from the plot devices of every other genre. It's a little ray of sunshine into the nerd ghetto, a little beacon of hope. It's also bullshit.

Their aren't many other genres based around the idea of the writer (uncharitably speaking) making shit up about the future...it's not surprising that SF would do relatively well in total number of correct 'predictions'.

Re:Just for the record...

[khallow]

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.

In defense of Niven, he didn't need that particular plot device to create the Belter culture. And like almost all sci fi writers, most of his plot devices aren't falsifiable.

Obvious flaw..

[cheros]

PS - To make sure there are no confounds, please send up hot female astronauts to eliminate alternate explanations on why the experiment failed.

Nice try, but there's a glaring omission: you yourself might be someone whose looks alone give reason for a Darwin award.. :-)

I know why

[Anonymous Coward]

Because storks can't fly in space.

Ultimate form of contraception

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely I'm not the only person who looked at this and thought that THIS MIGHT BE THE GREATEST FORM OF CONTRACEPTION EVER INVENTED.

For years science fiction writers have speculated on the adult pleasures that might be enjoyed in zero-gravity. And to find out that it comes with its own natural non-invasive temporary contraceptive?

"Awesome" might be an apt word to describe it. Suddenly space hotels can't come soon enough.

Re:Ultimate form of contraception

[NewsWatcher]

I am not sure giving birth to deformed children qualifies as contraception.

Re:Ultimate form of contraception

[MaskedSlacker]

The answer that question is a function of your political ideology.

Confusing headline.

[kerrbear]

Humph, cell division...When I first saw the headline I thought it was going to be about leverage.

This is Slashdot

[cbraescu1]

As if making babies in the basement is such an easy task, you insensitive clod!

.. on your part

[kestasjk]

You are saying having a G-force spread in all directions is harmful in a way that zero-G wouldn't be. That makes sense for chicken-eggs in gently rotating glass blenders, but not for the embryonic cells within gently rotating chicken-eggs:

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 ball is being rotated so that you don't sink in any direction (or you sink equally in every direction, if you prefer). As long as the fluid you're in is viscous enough and you are around the same density you couldn't tell whether you were in orbit or on earth.

Of course if you had a handful of uranium pellets you could drop them and they'd fall straight through the water; it only works as a decent zero-G analogue if everything inside was of the same density and/or the liquid is viscous enough to slow the fall in any direction.
On the scale of an embryonic cell there are no uranium pellets, the DNA in your cells isn't lying on the "floor" of the cell after all, and because on a microscopic scale water would seem a lot "thicker" it'd be like falling through syrup for a cell's organic molecules.

If the direction of gravity is changing fast enough from gentle rotation it'd be hard for the cell to "know" whether it was in zero-G or not.


tl;dr: If it's either you or the team of scientists who have had a "logic fail" it's probably going to be you..

Re:.. on your part

[TheLink]

But your imaginary "ball" scenario doesn't help show why it should work at all.

You experience weightlessness/zero G when you fall without any resistance. If you are in a giant plastic ball full of water and that ball falls, you will definitely still feel like you are falling. Your inner ears will still tell you that you are falling.

If you are in a giant plastic ball full of water and that ball rotates, you may feel like puking after a few spins.

So there will be a noticeable difference for your given scenario.

They should just put some mice up in space and have them breed etc, or some other creature with a short gestation period.

Re:.. on your part

[kestasjk]

You're right;unfortunately for the analogy our internal "I'm falling" detectors work based on something similar to the uranium-pellet-dropping loophole I mentioned.
In a cell though the molecules don't have finely tuned internal instruments to detect and react to freefall, just like they don't have uranium pellets.

Besides that there are also other problems with the analogy like how some parts of our body can be heavier than others, and water provides little resistance to things as huge as ourselves, so we would probably tend towards having our heaviest parts lowest (our heads tend to float), so we would feel water flowing across us as the ball rotated which we wouldn't feel if in zero-G.
But it's another problem with the analogy, because rather than being one large fluid-filled ball an embryo is a huge number of fluid-filled balls, and on the scale of each individual ball the fluid will be fairly viscous. Unlike the imaginary person in the ball the molecules will move with the water, and the water will move with the cell wall.

Really an organic molecule in a cell would behave more like a small piece of honeycomb in a jar of honey, whereas a human in a ball of water would behave more like a goldfish in a water-filled sandwich bag.

A bad analogy yes but I don't see any reason an embryo would function differently being rotated evenly than it would in zero-G.

Re:.. on your part

[Anonymous Coward]

There is introduced a new parameter in this effectively zero gravity experiment setting. The physical essence of the expression "gentry rotating" is in the angular speed of this rotation and the angular speed of movement of the instantaneous axis of rotation. The common sense gentle movement should fit the specific angular speeds in the cell and (I suppose) there is a whole spectrum of such. The experiment, probably, imitates sufficiently well zero-G.

The next question is: Is it really necessary to have 1G gravity in order to reproduce normally? Lunar gravity could be quite sufficient. How to repeat the experiment imitating 0.1G? Slowly rotating orbital stations with effective gravity 0.05G on the perimeter may meet the need of gravitation for reproduction.

Re:.. on your part

[Roger W Moore]

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.

Simple: first there is your inner ear balance and second there is the pooling of blood in your head when you are upside down. Both of these are affected differently by freefall and neutral buoyancy on the Earth because the two are very different physical environments.

If the direction of gravity is changing fast enough from gentle rotation it'd be hard for the cell to "know" whether it was in zero-G or not.

Not at all - it would know because of the pressure difference across the cell would always be changing direction. This is the same way that the macroscope organism can tell. I am not a biologist so I cannot tell whether this has an effect or not. However, since the purpose of the experiment seems to be to determine whether gravity has an effect I highly suspect that biologists themselves don't know either, otherwise why do the experiment?

Re:.. on your part

[kestasjk]

Simple: first there is your inner ear balance and second there is the pooling of blood in your head when you are upside down. Both of these are affected differently by freefall and neutral buoyancy on the Earth because the two are very different physical environments.

Yup someone else pointed this out above, you're right it's an "unhelpful" analogy. I tried to clarify what I meant above so I'll drop it here.
What's important is that it's not a problem with it as a zero-G equivalent on the cellular level, it's just a bad analogy.

Not at all - it would know because of the pressure difference across the cell would always be changing direction.

The other guy who responded added this point, but I think he was right that it'd have a negligible effect for embryos, which are tiny.

I haven't looked up info on the device they use but the center of rotation would be quite a way from the center of the tiny embryo, and it wouldn't be spinning very quickly, so the difference in centripetal force between the closer and further of the two sides would be tiny. (I'm imagining the embryos placed on the outer ring of some steadily rotating gyroscope-like thing, but not sure.)

(e.g. When you see people passing out in those high-G machines they're spinning quite a distance from the center (seated, facing inwards), so they feel almost exactly the same force over their whole body (but the tip of their nose would feel very slightly less heavy).
Now imagine the person was spinning much slower, and instead of feeling the difference between the tip of their nose and the back of their head they had to feel the G-force difference between the tip of their nose and their upper-lip. Not a huge difference, but scale that down to the cellular level and I think it can safely be ignored.)

Also it'd be easy to isolate any effect caused by such a tiny force by spinning the otherwise stationary "normal-G" embryos slightly to duplicate the force.
If they turn out the same as the perfectly stationary "normal-G" embryos it'd be safe to conclude that the slight rotational effect is having no effect on the "zero-G" embryos either.

So I'd say they can probably be pretty confident in applying these results to zero-G. Besides however much we discuss this now you can be sure it's well-trodden ground to the people running the experiment, and I'm mystified how the GP could think otherwise.

Re:.. on your part

[Anonymous Coward]

magine 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 ball is being rotated so that you don't sink in any direction (or you sink equally in every direction, if you prefer).

In the first case, you eventually come to a stop when either your own bouyant force or your weight runs up against the immovable ball surface. In the second case, you are perpetually sinking or rising as the fluid you're in moves away from that surface. In real zero-G, you stop moving because both you and your surrounding fluid are falling at the same speed.

A clinostat is not unlike indoor skydiving where viscous shear forces keep you suspended against gravity.

A clinostat is like zero-G in the same way that nailing a cat to the wall is like putting it on a shelf. If you happen to be interested in the specific aspects of microgravity that the clinostat models (never coming in contact with a solid surface), then it's all good. If you think shear forces or immobility is important to the process, then a clinostat is a bad model. You'd be surprised how many space biologists are bad a physics.

It seems like there will be a day...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when there will be people looking down on members of the 10000-metre club. Pun intended.

Re:It seems like there will be a day...

[MaskedSlacker]

Pun intended.

Really? I never would have guessed.

Re:It seems like there will be a day...

[Anonymous Coward]

No? Then you're probably quite stupid or just as unable to understand irony as I am pretending to be right now.

Sorry, I can't help it...

[hyades1]

Hey, baby, I got yer three-dimensional clinostat sperm storage device right here.

Mice are not humans

[Anonymous Coward]

Human pregnancy is different from mice pregnancy. As pregnant woman stands up, gravity aids by pushing baby downwards. This has vital role readying mother for upcoming birth.

Not a big deal...

[oljanx]

The only time childbirth in space would be required/permitted is on some sort of generational mission, right? In that case you're going to need some type of artificial gravity anyway, like the good old fashioned rotating wheel.

Cancer rehab in space?

[cpbrown]

If cells don't divide so easily in microgravity ... I see a massively profitable industry of space-therapy opening up in the (probably far, far) future.

Wrong G

[backwardMechanic]

G (universal gravitational constant) is everywhere, and no different on earth or in deep space. g (acceleration due to gravity at earths surface) is earth specific.

How about some serious data first?

[Roger W Moore]

It is good to see some serious thought and discussion about it.

It would be nice to see some serious data first. The article is based on rotating the cells on the Earth using the stupid assertion that this is somehow the same as no gravity. This is exactly the same as saying that shaking something vigorously is the same as leaving it alone: in both cases the net acceleration is zero. If you try that with a mixture of oil and water the outcome will hardly be the same will it? So why should we expect it to be the same for dividing cells?

Re:Where can I find results of all those experimen

[cherishyou]

i can't find what i want to .may be you should change the pages http:www.dvdorderstore.com

Why?

[Roger W Moore]

All you need for zero gravitation field (in the Newtonian view) is for the fields to cancel. For example exactly half way between the line joining the centres of two perfact, massive spheres the gravitational field will be zero. Speaking as a physicist I do not see why is this particularly interesting.

Re:Why?

[drseuk]

For example exactly half way between the line joining the centres of two perfact, massive spheres the gravitational field will be zero.

Attempting re-entry with Holly Goodhead in Moonraker can't have been that bad surely?

Tribbles

[ThaRizza]

Those little guys had no trouble at all!

Physics Fail

[Roger W Moore]

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.

No, no, no!

[Roger W Moore]

As soon as you are in free fall, you're not affected by gravity (at least not in a significant way).

Then could you please explain why you are accelerating downwards? Hint: it is due to a force called GRAVITY. Freefall is when the ONLY force that acts on you is gravity. Under normal circumstances there are two forces which act on you: gravity and a reaction force between you and whatever you are sitting, standing, lying etc. on. In freefall you remove this normal force NOT gravity.

Re:No, no, no!

[clone53421]

Then could you please explain why you are accelerating downwards? Hint: it is due to a force called GRAVITY.

That's insignificant, biologically speaking – unless you hit something, of course.

All the cells in your body are accelerating in a uniform way, thus gravity doesn't cause any compression, tension, or motion relative to other cells – the three things that I would consider "significant" in a biological sense.

Re:No, no, no!

[Roger W Moore]

That's insignificant, biologically speaking...

No it is significant because the fact that you are accelerating means that you are not experiencing the usual normal force which when a system is not accelerating, acts in an equal and opposite direction to gravity. This is a very common misconception. The thing that we "feel" as our weight is actually the reaction force to our weight. This is what actually causes the compression, tension etc. throughout our bodies, not gravity, since the force has to be transmitted from the point of contact throughout the body.

Re:No, no, no!

[clone53421]

First of all, if you're not experiencing the usual normal force, you're not being affected. That was sort of my point.

Secondly, you can't claim we feel one force and not the other. Gravity holds us down, the normal force holds us up – you can't say the force we feel is caused by one of those and not the other. It's caused by both working together. Without the normal force (in free-fall) we wouldn't feel the effect of gravity.

Re:No, no, no!

[Roger W Moore]

First of all, if you're not experiencing the usual normal force, you're not being affected. That was sort of my point.

...and your point is wrong! You ARE being affected by gravity, your are not being affected by a normal force. The only way you can stop being affected by gravity is to go a long, long way from the Earth and any other mass.

Secondly, you can't claim we feel one force and not the other.

Yes I can because what we feel is not the same as what is there. What we feel are pressure differences. Since the force of gravity is proportional to mass it generates a uniform acceleration over the entire body hence no pressure difference and no feeling. The normal force acts on your backside and then has to be transmitted throughout your body. The force on your backside has to support all of you, the force at the base of your neck only has to support your head and so is far less. This produces a pressure difference and so we feel a force. This effect is why water pressure increases in the ocean with increasing depth.

So, although two forces are acting on us we only feel one of them because the normal force acts on only a small area of our skin whereas gravity acts on every particle of our body. This does NOT mean that gravity does not act on us it just means that we do not feel it. Just like we do not feel atmospheric pressure which is exerting a huge force on the outside of our bodies.

Re:No, no, no!

[clone53421]

You ARE being affected by gravity, your are not being affected by a normal force. The only way you can stop being affected by gravity is to go a long, long way from the Earth and any other mass.

Let me remind you what maxwell_demon said: "you're not affected by gravity (at least not in a significant way)." My point is that gravity is insignificant if you're in free-fall (weightless).

What we feel are pressure differences. Since the force of gravity is proportional to mass it generates a uniform acceleration over the entire body hence no pressure difference and no feeling.

That's the point. It causes no discernible effect.

Re:No, no, no!

[Roger W Moore]

My point is that gravity is insignificant if you're in free-fall (weightless).

Do you know what weight is? Weight is the gravitational force acting on a body. You CANNOT be weightless in free-fall because otherwise you would not be falling! Yes - I know the common description given by astronauts in orbit is that they are "weightless" but that is factually incorrect - it is actually called apparent weightlessnes. You cannot argue that gravity is "insignificant" in freefall and "significant" when standing on the ground because it has not changed! I know that biologists find physics hard but when a physicist is trying to explain physics to you would you at least do the courtesy of not trying to tell him that he is wrong and that, just maybe, the problem lies in you not understanding the physics?

That's the point. It causes no discernible effect.

Acceleration is a discernable effect. Very discernable in fact.

Obligatory youtube reference

[tsa]

How is babby formed?

Newtypes

[EdZ]

If you heart is not weighed down by gravity... you may develop arrhythmia?

Why not just send some mice up to the ISS?

[michelcolman]

They carried out reproduction in space of sea urchins, fish, amphibians and birds, but no mice? If I were to study the effects of microgravity on pregnancy, I would put something similar to humans (at least a mammal) at the top of my list, instead of first trying a whole list of species that don't really resemble us. Why use centifuges to "simulate" zero G (?!) and not just send a few mice up to the ISS? OK, it might be difficult to get them to actually reproduce, maybe put them on a 1G centrifuge for the actual copulation bit and then let them float again.

Volunteers needed?

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

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:Volunteers needed?

[cashman73]

Dear Gandalf Greyhame,

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.

Once again, thank you for your interest in NASA's Copulation in Space Program!

Sincerely,
NASA

Re:Volunteers needed?

[mcgrew]

Dear Mister Wizard:

Do not give up hope!

English Fail

[Culture20]

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?

Orbit is just freefall around an object due to gravity. Yes, gravity acts on everything in the spacecraft, but not _relative_ to the spacecraft. Maybe English is not your primary language?

Re:English Fail

[Roger W Moore]

Orbit is just freefall around an object due to gravity. Yes, gravity acts on everything in the spacecraft, but not _relative_ to the spacecraft. Maybe English is not your primary language?

Sorry to disappoint but actually being English I can understand what you have written perfectly well and actually being a physicist I can also understand that you don't have a good grasp of the physics involved. Gravity is a force and forces are not relative like velocities. The fact that there is no acceleration relative to the spacecraft is because the spacecraft is an accelerating reference frame where Newton's first law does not apply. It does not mean that gravity has magically gone away. Hence it is wrong to say that gravity has no effect on the objects in the spacecraft (a point you have conceded) and it is also wrong to say that gravity does not act relative to the space craft. It does. It does not produce an acceleration relative to the spacecraft.

Gravity from every direction no gravity at all.

[GarryFre]

This is no more a simulation of no gravity its simply telling you that mice don't do well in rolling barrel.

Re:Gravity from every direction no gravity at all.

[GarryFre]

The subject line was weeded out. it should have said Gravity from every direction (not equal sign) aka not equal to no gravity at all.

What? But in STXI Kirk is born on a Shuttlecraft!!

[master_p]

I long for the day that gravity is controlled by a switch, like the lights of a room...

High Gravity

[space_hippy]

what would the effect be of higher gravity on development?

Any women out there want to spend 9 months in a centrifuge?

use for snuggies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe snuggies could help?
http://thesnuggiesutra.com/

Knocked Up

[DarthVain]

Jason: The real point is not to get yourself into this position, that's what you have to realize. You gotta know all the tricks like, for example, if a woman's on top she can't get pregnant. It's just gravity.
Jonah: Well that's true. Everyone knows that.
Jason: What goes up must come down.

"Zero Gravity"

[The Monster]

I really hate that expression. If there were no gravity "in space", the International Space Station, as well as GPS and communications satellites, wouldn't stay in orbit. For that matter, the moon wouldn't orbit the Earth, and the Earth wouldn't orbit the Sun. The correct term is "free fall".

Re:"Zero Gravity"

[32771]

According to the comments so far, people see no gravity in the situation.

Smart-arsed reply

[The Monster]

Please send the mother of the first person to post a smart-arsed reply as one of the female candidates on the mission.

My mother is dead, you insensitive clod!

Easy solution

[alexborges]

Put the mom (natural or artificial) in a calibrated centrifuge so that it provides a force akin to gravity.

Re:Where can I find results of all those experimen

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.

I volunteer

[skornenicholas]

I realize that this is a risky assignment; but, in the name of science I will volunteer to undergo the rigors of space-sex again and again and again until we have a pregnancy or I will die trying, so help me God!

ObSimpsons

[LittleGuy]

"Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the capsule making Starbabies and I saw one of the Starbabies and then the Starbaby looked at me."

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my space baby now!

Face Hugger

[pdxguy]

An Alien face-hugger seems to do fairly well in both induced gravity and near-/zero-gravity environments.

I knew...

[thecod]

When i saw the title, I knew 2 things: 1. The content of the post would probably disappoint me. 2. The content of the comments probably wouldn't. I win!

Spacemice are gay

[Anonymous Coward]

Diagram says:

1. Collect sperm
2. Collect cocs
3. Incubate
4. ...
5. little gay spacemice

DS9 and shape-shifters

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the episode of DS9 where Odo finds an 'infant' shape-shifter. He tries teaching the thing to shape-shift by pouring the goo into different shaped containers...and fails. What finally inspires the little sentient goo-goo child to form a shape? Electric shock.

So our cells require the hardship of gravity to mature...poetical wisdom.

What about bunnies?

[BorgCopyeditor]

What about bunnies? Rufus is going to die, isn't he?

why the clinostat?

[ascari]

The clinostat bit is still somewhat puzzling. One would have thought that with all the junk they drag back and forth between earth and the space station they would have included a couple of pregnant mice by now. Anybody know why this is so?

Logically inconsistent

[Roger W Moore]

Not at all - it would know because of the pressure difference across the cell would always be changing direction.

The other guy who responded added this point, but I think he was right that it'd have a negligible effect for embryos, which are tiny.

Ah - but here is the crux of the matter. You are arguing on one hand that the pressure difference across the cell is a "negligible" but the only difference between zero-g and being on the surface of the earth is this pressure difference. So either you are correct and it is negligible - in which case the results are wrong - or it is not negligible and therefore you cannot neglect the effect of varying it and so the results are potentially wrong.

Re:Logically inconsistent

[kestasjk]

So either you are correct and it is negligible - in which case the results are wrong

Hmm, you'll have to explain that to me. If it's negligable how are the results wrong?

Re:Logically inconsistent

[Roger W Moore]

If the effect of the pressure difference is negligible then how can there be a difference between zero-g and normal-g? i.e. why do the cells divide in one case and not the other? The only physical difference is the pressure difference so, somehow, this must cause the effect they claim to observe.

The problem is not fertilization but growth.

[niftymitch]

The problem is not fertilization but growth. In the 60's "apical meristem" propagation of orchids, trees and other plants became common. The growing end of a plant is dissected deposite in a nutrient broth then placed in a tumbling rack so the plant could not discover "up". The dissected bit would still grow and after a week it was chopped into bits which were then tumbled for a week or so. In almost no time thousands of identical clones would be tumbling. The next step was to deposit them on a solid nutrient rich gel and after they began to display a couple leaves they would be moved out of the sterile jars into flats. At this point the roll of beneficial was discovered but that is another not so trifling (truffeling too) subject