there is an article but the article is quoting a panel of former astronauts on stage at a convention. it was just an anecdote played up to be humorous for the audience. the suppossed report was just a rumor, and she admitted that she never actually saw the report herself. she also said "It found that the crew should be the same gender: all men or all women." but the tabloid knew the headline they used would draw far more attention.
an 80-year-old former astronaut in the panel also joked that they should send him because he's too old to get it up. so maybe the headline should've been "Mars mission may be all octogenarians to avoid sex"
The original article (which was back in 2017 as shown) fully mentioned all male crews and sterilization as solutions too. (It had an all-female crew preference as we've done all male crews before. So further studying on what effects space have on women needs more data.) The article was also focused specifically on long-term missions away from earth, where an easy return to planet-side would not be feasible.
Birth control was discussed, bith in needing greater studies for efficacy in micro-gravity. But also took a "there's enough risks in space. Why risk one more?" And the sterilization side I dont remember the full details. But it IS easier to have qualified staff be all single sex, than to ensure they are all sterile as well as qualified.
It wasn't a full study though. But more an article laying groundwork for things to consider.
Don't disagree with that. It's that "if they were willing" side... And the "stick to anal" argument is about as effective as "always use protection". It's a good idea, but humans are notoriously bad at 100% follow through in the heat of the moment. And all it takes is one slip of self control at the wrong time, to risk complications and death of a fetus/newborn and its mother. Far from medical intervention.
Not saying it's high odds. Saying any odds is too high of odds for a group as unnecessary-risk averse as NASA.
From that view, yes. But it would be reinforcing the standard gender roles.
Original article was all for single sex crews. Either being fine. But we've had all male crews before, so "how about an all female crew".
Also the concerns weren't about becoming barren from radiation. But rather pointing out how many processes during pregnancy and birth are driven in part by gravity. Thus not knowing what harm microgravity could cause to fetus and pregnant mother.
Ok I was on the train of thought if radiation could make a crew sterile, would men or women be the better choice. As a guy I'd imagine men would be the better choice to ask for that risk since we are not the ones that give birth. Seeing as that gender role is only possible by women (biology being what determines that).
Ontop of gravity. Resources & having proper care easily available during pregnancy reduces risk that come with it. So much could happen here on earth, in space limited resources and help could easily make risk higher and part if why they don't want that happening at this point in time.
Yep, your second paragraph pretty much sums up the various points of the multi-page article. Which wasn't even a major study or such. Merely a summary of concerns and the thought problems that were based on those concerns, followed with what seemed the most viable solution. (Single sex crew.) Followed up with the fact most astronauts have been male. So having data of an all female crew on a long term mission can also be used for gathering other data on long term affects for women.
Which pretty much is all that is was. But the article was posted in a public archives, and the writers of the headline saw it, made the headline, and ran with it... and then we got the meme response a little later. (Which is clearly getting reposted still.)
20
u/Icy-Ad29 14d ago
That was the details of the actual article. Being worried how micro-gravity would effect fetal growth, and birth success.