Slashdot Mirror
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."'"
Zero gravity probably makes the actual copulation bit kinda tricky too.
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?
... but I'm willing to try!
The enemies of Democracy are
a) sex in space: easy
b) consequences of sex in space: non-existant
I am pleased.
If I put an egg into a blender, I'm pretty sure it'd have a hard time forming a chicken too.
Why?
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
"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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
where can I find results of all those experiments?
You better clear out your calendar, you have a lot reading ahead of you.
Hush, we're trying to be bitter about NASA here if you don't mind..
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Astro-Glide!
I don't respond to AC's.
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
...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.
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
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..
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
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.
Humans cannot withstand long term micro-gravity. Period.
There's your problem. You're not pregnant until you STOP having periods.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
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.
"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.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
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.
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.
I am not stubborn. I am right!
This is no more a simulation of no gravity its simply telling you that mice don't do well in rolling barrel.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
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.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Madona? Is that you?
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
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.
According to the comments so far, people see no gravity in the situation.
Je me souviens.