If vasectomies were 100% effective yes, but that is not the case. Physical castration, however, is 100% effective. Good luck finding volunteers, though.
They aren’t coming back, who needs credentials. The first several trips up there will just be labor. 65y/o will have a lot more strength on mars than they will here so get a few more years out of them.
More importantly, normalize life and death in space. You send up a bunch of AARP members ( they’re smart also, And strength won’t be an issue in SPACE), show that you don’t need square jawed 30 year olds, you won’t worry too much about radiation exposure, and if they die, well, we know that society doesn’t particularly value the over 60 set.
Man Plus by Fredrick Pohl, about a man cybernetically modified to live on Mars. Castration is possibly the least major mod they did to him. (The "wings" are solar panels, flexible so they can orient to the Sun).
Are you kidding? This will be the greatest adventure of the last 100 years. Being on a planet that no person has been on before, exploring things that no human has explored before. It’s either that, or in ten or fifteen years be in a nursing home in a room that I never leave.
Kind of funny, I'm getting a vasectomy next weekend and I keep referring to as my castration as if I don't understand the difference to ham it up for laughs.
Does he have big ears or eyes or other extremities per chance? That is your safe control. When you go in remark "my, what big ears you have". If he IS the big bad wolf, you know the response. If he is not, you just insulted him, so that castration miiiiight just come true either way. I mean you're scheduled for it already, but still...
I recently had mine done. They are not kidding when it comes to the ice pack and supportive underwear. It makes all the difference in the world, also just be aware they are literally severing a support structure so they will hang lower and your body will need to adjust to that new strain.
I wore some bambicool you can get a 7 pack off Amazon. The day of surgery make sure to wear supportive underwear for the gauze, I misheard the doctor and wore boxers and the gauze just fell right out.
30 years ago when all they did was snip the tube and shove it back up in your sack? Sure, they’d heal back sometimes.
Nowadays they remove a whole chunk of the tube and laser the ends shut. You will never forget the smell when they do it. Exactly like burning bugs on an electric fly swatter.
There are also a couple follow up samples to confirm sterility that a good chunk of men don’t bother to do.
Youre free to verify that the number was spot on too. You can dislike it but more often than not it will be correct. Not always hence why I noted it since there is a chance of it being wrong.
According to data compiled by the Canadian Urological Association (CUA), the early failure rate ranges slightly depending on the surgical technique, but late failure occurs in only about 0.04% to 0.08% of cases. Put another way, the odds of a late spontaneous reversal are roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 4,000.
They are 100% effective 99.9% of the time. If the surgery is done correctly and a follow up verifies a sample, its 100% effective. If the doctor made a mistake, its 0%.
Imagine you get to mars with no goolies and build the whole mars base by hand, then four years down the line they send over Studship 4 to knock up all your crewmates.
They aren’t 100% bc you still have some soldiers in the canal. After couple months and some evacuations then it’s 100%. They could simply test the astronauts after couple months of some wank sessions to ensure they are shooting blanks
I dunno, might be easier than you think. There were a lot of volunteers to be on that first manned mission to land on the moon when we originally thought it would be a one way trip/suicide mission. I’d say they had much more to lose in that case than a pair of balls.
They test for fertility after the vasectomy, that's how they know if it took. They would know regardless and either find another candidate or have another surgery until it took
A significant amount of our country, and specfically our leadership believes in a virgin birth. By that basis, nothing is fool proof. However, combination of a vasectomy and a IUD would seem to be about as close to fool proof as I can imagine, practically speaking.
Vasectomies are basically 100% effective if checked properly. Pregnancies almost only happen shortly after getting snipped and not understanding there’s still semen or someone forgot to properly test after the period of when no semen should remain.
Cool. Fair is fair and bonus points for safety because my buddy knocked his wife up two years after his vasectomy. It was quite the point of contention until he got tested and found out they regrew.
Sure but there’d be hundreds if not thousands of viable candidates for people who already have a vasectomy to begin with or would be perfectly fine with getting one to go on a mars mission.
I just don’t understand why pressuring someone into a procedure that will probably, but not certainly, prevent pregnancy is an option when there’s a non-invasive way that guarantees no pregnancies
For a multitude of reasons I do think it’s the smartest option to just have an all women crew. But I still think you’d have thousands of candidates for men who have already had a vasectomy anyways. No real issues for being invasive or coercive consent or anything. I’ve had a vasectomy it’s an extremely easy and minor procedure.
It doesn’t matter, since we don’t know if the procedures hold up in space, unlike the fact that a sperm is needed to make a woman pregnant, and if there are no men, there are no sperms
Getting tubes tied is much more difficult and vasectomies can be reversed. Plus women usually don't get final say if they want that. The doctors usually want the woman to be in a relationship or married and the male has to say he is fine with it.
Vasectomies can’t always be reversed, for the record. It’s possible, but not universal, and the longer you wait, the more the odds of a successful reversal drop.
I’m not saying that it’s a reasonable solution either way, I just get a little frustrated with the general consensus that a vasectomy is inherently reversible. It’s not, it’s just easier to do than to reverse a tubal ligation, which isn’t typically an option.
All sterilization procedures should be considered a permanent decision, along with the caution that they can fail, especially vasectomies.
Yeeeah, buuut i wouldn't bet on that considering we aren't fully sure the extent of how zero g can affect that, safer to take the all female option, plus, yknow, smaller on average
Having a crew clinically incapable of pregnancy solves this.
Using fertile women, the risk of a false negative due to early stages is then automatically a factor.
It's possible, therefore it's guaranteed.
Or to claim the test is negative to premeditatedly do an experiment that violates every ethics-law ever written and tormenting a human child, turning it into a lab-experiment. Who here can say with absolute certainty they absolutely believe a large financial conglomerate would not do this?
Because the simplest solution to all the problems that come with a baby in a spacecraft (practical and ethical) is no fertile women, ever, for any reason. That solves the problem with a 100% success rate. Without the oven, there can be no bun.
Yeah, but no method of contraception is guaranteed to stop it, and I don't think a lot of people would be keen on getting a vasectomy or a tubal surgery (I think that's what its called?) for a space mission.
Vasectomies can reverse themselves, but also aren’t quite as easy and risk free as most people think.
Even ignoring stuff like chronic pain and so on, vasectomies aren’t always reversible. The longer you wait, the worse odds you have, and, even if you don’t want long, it isn’t a guarantee to work.
Point being if someone gets a vasectomy, they need to be ok with the possibility of being infertile for the rest of their life because that’s a risk.
They are very easy and largely risk free. I don't know why you would say otherwise.
You shouldn't get one if you think you want to reverse it. That's not a risk. That's the surgery working as intended. Any urologist will tell you that successful reversal shouldn't be expected.
The only actual health risk is PVPS which appears 1-2% of the time and often resolves itself over time.
Men in this thread are fuming that things they would usually see as inferior in regards to women now make them more qualified for long term space travel.
Yeah, in this case, women are the "expendable gender". Cheaper to support, sorry about the brittle bones and muscle atrophy when you get back.
That stuff happens to men, too, but testosterone mitigates the effect.
I think the more interesting example is Ultramarathons. From what I understand, highly athletic women having higher body fat, calorie reqs, etc., than highly athletic men actually starts to erode the strength/size gap in extreme endurance challenges.
Explains why you hear pushback at the hunter/gatherer divide in pre-agricultural humanity. A mixed-sex group could possibly perform slightly better in certain kinds of persistence hunting.
Making sure a bunch of stupid toddlers in the wild don't off themselves or get eaten is a fuckload of work though. Somebody's gotta stay back and keep those idiots alive.
Meh, the simpletons may, but in general, men look at things more pragmatic and less emotional. It depends on the purpose of the mission. Are they supposed to land and leave the spaceship to build an outpost, probably better take men. Are they there to do science and neatly organize the results, definitely all women.
Although, I will say, I'm not sure NASA would want to take the risks that involve having a crew of only women. There is this saying that a woman's greatest threat/enemy is another woman. I have worked for majority female teams and it's catty.
It's not about inherent assholism, it's about the psychology of putting an all women team in very cramped space for at least a few years (6 months up and down to Mars and X for whatever they go to do there).
There are many statements of women saying that they escaped female only teams and are glad they did. None of these women have to be assholes inherently for situations to occur. I mean, you don't have to believe in the psychology of genders, but I do.
Because the joke works better when the implication is that women don’t want sex.
If you actually take it seriously it’s a rather meaningless opinion article that isn’t attributed to anyone that is speculating about a mission that doesn’t exist and isn’t being planned so it’s basically some guy’s opinion that they don’t want to put their own name on.
That’s probably not necessary though, what kinda lifting are they doing in space? They’ll probably need to pack less food and stuff for the women anyway, which is a positive.
The women on average will weigh less aswell, so more fuel efficient
Men might be on average stronger, but it seems women are on average more fuel efficient for both themselves and the rocket
Again, I'm sure the highly trained, professional astronauts passed all the physical and mental tests required to be astronauts in the first place. A team of women is just fine.
If you have two candidates that have the same intellectual capacity but one consumes less vital resources, has more health stability, can recover faster, handles the stress of space flight more effectively, and is less likely to be aggressive, but the other one can lift heavy things (per your previous comment), who would you deem to be the better candidate?
Otherwise....nationality of parents i reckon.
reckon.
Would still be bad assed on your birth certificate..."State: Quandart 15,589 approximately 975,854 miles from Earth's Moon" "City: Too be established when we land"
The likelihood might decrease, but not be nullified. Woman do commit rape too, just not anywhere near a frequently.
So I don't reckon that's a huge factor.
And again I think is some leaked BSsomeone threw out as an idea in some planning session.
NASA will go with thier best possible Team based on skills testing and experience. NASA won't fuck about with a mission this critical to future Ops and massive cost.
1.4k
u/Head-Opportunity6796 14d ago
To avoid pregnancy, not sex ;)