Dave (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2009 9:01 am
All of the astronauts say there never was sex in space but there are always suspicions. The Space shuttle astronauts are monitored by ground control so if they ever did masturbate, Houston would ask why their heart rates and breathing are doing that. The Russians weren't as intrusive but they say no sex -- suspicions all over ...
It either is or will be the ultimate mile high club.
No but didn't Yuri Gargarin subsequently marry Valentina Tereshkova, a female cosmonaut so the sex would have taken place on earth. I never heard about any children though. My guess is, if there were any, they were (are) perfectly normal.
Come on! Of course there has been sex in space. Who could pass up the opportunity. Although astronauts and cosmonauts are consumate professionals, they are also creative and highly trained so I'm sure they could figure a way.
Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:26 am
No but didn't Yuri Gargarin subsequently marry Valentina Tereshkova, a female cosmonaut so the sex would have taken place on earth. I never heard about any children though. My guess is, if there were any, they were (are) perfectly normal.
and yes big applause for Valentina cause she was the first lady ever in ever;)
so forget sex but how about the first space born child then? The first generation it its kind that can surpass Homo Sapiens as Homo Sapiens did to Neanderthals:D
Kortpeel (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2009 10:26 am
No but didn't Yuri Gargarin subsequently marry Valentina Tereshkova, a female cosmonaut so the sex would have taken place on earth. I never heard about any children though. My guess is, if there were any, they were (are) perfectly normal.
No marraige there... wrong cosmonaut: After the Vostok 6 flight a rumor began circulating that she would marry Andrian Nikolayev (1929–2004), the only bachelor cosmonaut to have flown. Nikolayev and Tereshkova married on 3 November 1963 at the Moscow Wedding Palace. Khrushchev himself presided at the wedding party, together with top government and space program leaders.
As for Gargarin: in 1955, after completing his technical schooling, he entered military flight training at the Orenburg Pilot's School. While there he met Valentina Goryacheva, whom he married in 1957, after gaining his pilot's wings in a MiG-15.
Dave (imported) wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:12 pm
Putting your nuts into orbit. Not many men can say their nuts went into orbit.
BTW - Sometimes chit-chat about odd subjects is good for getting to know the other person.
Seems to me that I saw a ball busting video somewhere showing a POV of this British chick, wearing only black stockings and black pumps, telling the bustee that she wanted to put his balls into orbit as she kicked him. Actually, rather arousing, that!
More than a year ago, I read a news bit somewhere about how much the war in Iraq was costing us, and what other things we could have bought with that much money...
There have been wildly ambitious plans for "space ships" and "moon colonies" and even Martian colonies, these ideas have been around for a long while. But until reletively recently, the wild ideas were quite impossible. But now, we actually have landed on the moon, landed un-manned probes on Mars and Venus, even sent probes out that are destined to one day leave this solar system. So "wild ideas" of 100 years ago, are now actually reachable, do-able and not so wild. Certainly not as wildly insane as our war in Iraq.
One such wildly ambitious idea, that I remeber hearing about even in the 1980's, was a space based solar-to-electric power generation station. Solar panel tech has really made some advancement, and so have all the other required technologies.
NASA had offered plans for an orbiting power generation station, that would have been able to transmit it's output back down to earth via a concentrated microwave beam, where the microwaves would be converted back to electricity at microwave-electric recieving stations on the earth, and then put on the power grid. Though it sounds very complicated, the microwave method of moving electricity is a lot more efficient and cheaper than high tension wires on utility towers. So, this space power station could have already been built, and would have produced enough electricity to meet all current electricity demands of the U.S. We could shut down every coal fired plant, every nuclear reactor, even every hydro-electric dam if we had wanted to, but this "wildly ambitious" scheme would have cost an incomprehensable ONE TRILLION DOLLARS... and that was three or four years ago when they had priced it at one trillion.
About a year ago, the war debt was just tipping ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. For our $1,000,000,000,000 investment in a Saddam Hussein free Iraq... have we seen U.S. national security interests better protected? No? Maybe our foreign oil supply more reliable and economical? No? OH, well the international image of the U.S. has surely improved! No? Let's face it, we have squandered that trillion dollars, would have been better spent in a whore house.
So.... I do believe that my scheme, that would start with the most efficient and economical method to put (non-living) payloads into space, that being a "supergun" like Dr. Gerald Bull had envisioned, well my scheme is NOT so wildly ambitious now. The supergun could quickly and economically put most of the solar-to-electric-microwave generator into orbit, where the space shuttle could be putting the astronaut construction crew to assemble it. Further, the supergun could put extra fuel tanks in orbit for the rockets that would be required to position the power station in optimum orbit.
Investment in a supergun would be money very well spent. Even though a supergun would be launching only non-living payloads, that is the majority of what we need to get into orbit for now and for the foreseeable future.
Now here is where I am going to get seriously "widly ambitious," so this is the good part of my post.
In addition to putting good things in space easily and quickly, the supergun could also put some very bad things up there for us. I am NOT talking about something so stupid as any sort of bomb... no, there are much much better weapons, that don't even look like weapons. If we were to place in orbit, a fleet of positionable sattelites, specially designed to reflect or block the sun's light... The sattelites could be simply a large roll of mylar film, rolled up until we needed to do some things. The sattelites could effectively put a permanent shadow over any spot on the earth, cooling it to a permanent winter night, wipe out any hope for agriculture and make life unbearable anywhere on earth, like the cities, farms and industrial centers of any country that went to war with us. They would also be able to reflect the sun's light, doubling or even tripling, endlessly multiplying the solar radiation on an area, cooking the surface, again, making life unbearable anywhere we wanted to stop someone. Cloud cover might for a moment present a problem, but the solar radiation would be able to "burn through" it with enough time.
I believe these sun-blocker/sun-reflector sattelites would be much better put to use as weather influencing measures. In sufficient numbers, they would be able to reverse global warming, extend growing seasons in agricultural lands, even be available to paying customers who wanted to always have a mild "night light effect" so they would still have day and night, but they could make nights not so dark and a bit safer.
So do you think my super-gun idea is corney? A lot of people would... so, instead we will invest our dollars in more war with Iraq... Oh my, now there's a productive investment, much better than my childish super-gun and space power station, and sun-blocker/reflector sattelites.
DeaconBlues - Not a bad idea but the supergun would destroy the payload due to the crushing force of explosive acceleration.
An idea proposed decades ago should be re-evaluated since technology has probably caught up with the idea.
The idea being a rail-gun catapult. With a rail system stretching a couple of miles the payload could be accelerated at a rate that wouldn't cause damage and would allow astronauts to accompany the payload. Coupled with rocket assistance, the payload/craft could be directed up a ramp into orbit without the use of the huge amounts of fuel used by the shuttle.
Taylor (imported) wrote: Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:31 am
The idea being a rail-gun catapult. With a rail system stretching a couple of miles the payload could be accelerated at a rate that wouldn't cause damage and would allow astronauts to accompany the payload. Coupled with rocket assistance, the payload/craft could be directed up a ramp into orbit without the use of the huge amounts of fuel used by the shuttle.
Completely doable.
On length - for the astronauts to accompany payload, acceleration must not be greater than 10g, being conservative - 6g.
Minimal speed, that must be reached by the projectile in this catapult - 7900m/s.
S=a(t^2)/2
v=at.
Getting time from here - t=v/a
S=(v^2)/(2a)
S=(7900^2)/(2*9.1*6)=571520meters. or 571km (approximately).
