Xref: utzoo soc.couples:5608 sci.space.shuttle:8013
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!ucivax!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucsd!sdcc6!jclark
From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.couples,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Best position for pregnancy
Message-ID: <20208@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 6 Jun 91 22:42:22 GMT
References: <1991May27.183119.26625@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <35232@mimsy.umd.edu> <1991Jun5.175954.24544@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Followup-To: soc.couples
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 28

In article <1991Jun5.175954.24544@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mll@aio.jesnet.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
+
+You bet your buns that nothing like this will be "officially" carried
+out by NASA.  Space flight is an EXTREMELY costly activity and John Q.
+Public won't stand and watch his hard earned tax money go to make
+films of some couple "diddling" in micro-G.  No, when it does happen

Yeh, J.Q.P. would rather read about jellyfish behavior in reduced
gravity envornments. If everything worked the same way in space as
on earth there would be no point in doing any experiementation in
spece. The point is that methods which are taken for granted  on the
surface do not work in many cases. The 'underwater' simulation fails
in several ways. One is the required breathing equipment. Also, humans
are buoyant at a different point than metallic objects and must be
weighted to achieve neutral buoyancy, where as metalic object sink
to a much deeper level before neutral buoyancy is reached. This would
change characteristics of various methods for sexual congress
(especially for those who use metallic objects during sex).

Although my origial posting was in the humorous line, it seems to
have picked out a few individuals who consider sex a 'private, for
the bedroom' activity with any 'scientific' investigation left to
the last of a very long list of other more important scientific
endevors.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu