Claim: NASA shuttle astronauts conducted sex experiments in space.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1989]
Experiment 8 Postflight Summary
NASA publication 14-307-1792
purpose of this experiment was to prepare for the expected participation in long-term space based research by husband-wife teams once the US space station is in place. To this end, the investigators explored a number of possible approaches to continued marital relations in the
Our primary conclusion is that satisfactory marital relations are within the realm of possibility in
The number of married couples currently involved in proposals for long- term projects on the US space station has grown considerably in recent years. This raises the serious question of how such couples will be able to carry out normal marital relations without the aid of gravity.
Preliminary studies in the short-term weightless environment provided by aircraft flying on ballistic trajectories were sufficient to demonstrate that there were problems, but the duration of the
The primary conclusion that could be drawn from these early experiments was that the conventional approach to marital relationships (sometimes described as the missionary approach) is highly dependent on gravity to keep the partners together. This observation lead us to propose the set of tests known as
The co-investigators had exclusive use of the lower deck of the shuttle for
Each experimental run was planned in advance to test one approach to the problem. We made extensive use of a number of published sources in our efforts to find satisfactory solutions see
Six solutions utilized mechanical restraints to simulate the effect of gravity, while the others utilized only the efforts of the experimenters to solve the problem. Mechanical and unassisted runs were alternated, and each experimental run was videotaped for later analysis. Immediately after each run, the experimenters separately recorded their observations, and then jointly reviewed the videotapes and recorded joint observations.
The sensitive nature of the videotapes and first-hand observations precludes a public release of the raw data. The investigators have prepared this paper to summarize their results, and they intend to release a training videotape for internal NASA use, constructed from selected segments of the videotapes and additional narrative material.
The following summary is organized in two sections; the first covers the mechanical solutions, while the second covers the “natural” approaches. Each solution is described briefly, and then followed by a brief summary of the result. Some summaries are combined.
1) An elastic belt around the waist of the two partners. The partners faced each other in the standard or missionary posture.
Entry was difficult and once it was achieved, it was difficult to maintain. With the belt worn around the hips, entry was easy, but it was difficult to obtain the necessary thrusting motion; as a result, this approach was not satisfactory.
2) Elastic belts around the thighs of the two partners. The female’s buttocks were against the groin of the male, with her back against his chest.
An interesting experiment, but ultimately unsatisfactory because of the difficulty of obtaining the necessary thrusting motion.
3) An elastic belt binding the thighs of the female to the waist of the male. The female’s buttocks were against the male’s groin, while her knees straddled his chest.
Of the approaches tried with an elastic belt, this was by far the most satisfactory. Entry was difficult, but after the female discovered how to lock her toes over the male’s thighs, it was found that she could obtain the necessary thrusting motions. The male found that his role was unusually passive but pleasant.
One problem both partners noticed with all three elastic belt solutions was that they reminded the partners of practices sometimes associated with bondage, a subject that neither found particularly appealing. For couples who enjoy such associations, however, and especially for those who routinely enjoy female superior relations, this solution should be recommended.
4) An inflatable tunnel enclosing and pressing the partners together. The partners faced each other in the standard missionary posture. The tunnel enclosed the partners roughly from the knees to waist and pressed them together with an air pressure of approximately 0.01 standard atmospheres.
Once properly aroused, the uniform pressure obtained from the tunnel was sufficient to allow fairly normal marital relations, but getting aroused while in the tunnel was difficult, and once aroused outside the tunnel,
5) The same inflatable tunnel used in
6) The same inflatable tunnel used in
Foreplay was satisfactory with both approaches; in the second case, we found that it could be accomplished inside the tunnel, quite unlike our experience with
A general disadvantage of the inflatable tunnel approach was that the tunnel itself tended to get sticky with sweat and other discharges. We feel that the difficulty of keeping a tunnel clean in
7) The standard missionary posture, augmented by having the female hook her legs around the male’s thighs and both partners hug each other.
8) The posture used in
Initially, these were very exciting and promising approaches, but as the runs approached their climaxes, an unexpected problem arose. One or the other partner tended to let go, and the hold provided by the
9) The posture used in
Most of the responsibility for success rested on the male here, and we were successful after a series of false starts, but we did not find the experience to be particularly rewarding.
10) Each partner gripping the other’s head between their thighs and hugging the other’s hips with their arms.
This was the only run involving non-procreative marital relations, and it was included largely because it provided the greatest number of distinct ways for each partner to hold the other. This 4 points redundant hold was good enough that we found this solution to be most satisfactory. In fact, it was more rewarding than analogous postures used in a gravitational field.
We recommend that married couples considering maintaining their marital relations during a space mission be provided with an elastic belt such as we used for
We recognize that any attempt by NASA to recommend approaches to marital relationships will be politically risky, but we feel that, especially in cases where long missions are planned, thought be given to screening couples applying to serve on such missions for their ability to accept or adapt to the solutions used in
NASA Contractor Report 3490A University of (NAME DELETED)
Support for the commonsensical observation that male/female subjects can conduct normal marital relations in a zero G environment with mechanical assistance has been deemed feasible based on the experiments outlined in reports NASW-xxxx, NAS1-xxxx, and NASW-xxxx.
The adaptation of current experiments in artificial eye-hand coordination through application of neural networks coupled with on going cooperating redundant wrist manipulators was performed. The basic paradigm involved attaching each subject to a manipulator and coordinating the motion of the subjects through a two hidden-layer back-error propagation neural network. The output of the neural network stage was fed into a backward- chaining rule based system in order to achieve optimal control of the manipulators.
Two different configurations were tested. The first setting involved the application of a single hold manipulator attached via a rigid waist device. The second configuration, believed to be more stable, involved attachment via three bands that can be arranged in different configurations in order to match the local differences of the particular subjects.
Attachment of the subjects to the harness was achieved through an electrically excited velcro-like coupling,
The effectiveness of the system was validated through twelve experiments. During the course of these experiments it was determined that the use of the redundant manipulator allowed for single subject use of the system as a unisexual device. We believe that this could be of great importance for long duration flights were the subject can not find a suitable partner or the availability of a opposite configured SO is limited.
Origins: You’d think that after Pierre Salinger’s embarrassing claim of having found “proof” that TWA Flight 800 was shot down by a missile (and even without Salinger’s example) people would know better by now than to pull “documents” off the Internet and offer them as “discoveries” of some hitherto concealed “secret.” Anyone who’s been around the virtual block knows:
- Just because you find something printed in a book or a newspaper doesn’t mean it’s true, and items published on the Internet are even more likely to be spurious.
- If you found it on the Internet, then it’s likely at least a few thousand other people “discovered” it before you did.
- The lifespan of a “secret” on the Internet is shorter than a “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire” marriage.
The alleged NASA “sex in space” documents were a spoof that started making the rounds of the Internet over ten years ago, well before most people knew there was an Internet. Now another Pierre has been had: Pierre Kohler, a French astronomer and scientific writer who is apparently new to this game, has offered parts of this spoof almost verbatim in his new book The Final Mission as a “confidential NASA report” that demonstrates NASA had (or at least planned to have) space shuttle astronauts engage in sex in space as part of a routine of scientific experiments in 1996.
Oops. Part of the standard debunking of this gag way back when was that the shuttle mission cited,
Perhaps an additional rule that should be added to the list above is:
- If you get duped by something on the Internet, just admit it and move along. It probably won’t be the last time, and the sooner you get it over with, the better.
More advice too late for M. Kohler, it appears, who’s maintaining that “it could be a hoax, but [that’s] a remote possibility” and that he had “more reasons to believe that it’s true,” one of the “more reasons” apparently being that he “verified” the document with a “sexologist.” Okie-dokie. We trust you’ll fix this all up in the paperback edition, Pierre.
Last updated: 12 July 2007
A Word to Our Loyal Readers
Support Snopes and make a difference for readers everywhere.
- David Mikkelson
- Doreen Marchionni
- David Emery
- Bond Huberman
- Jordan Liles
- Alex Kasprak
- Dan Evon
- Dan MacGuill
- Bethania Palma
- Liz Donaldson
- Vinny Green
- Ryan Miller
- Chris Reilly
- Chad Ort
- Elyssa Young
Most Snopes assignments begin when readers ask us, “Is this true?” Those tips launch our fact-checkers on sprints across a vast range of political, scientific, legal, historical, and visual information. We investigate as thoroughly and quickly as possible and relay what we learn. Then another question arrives, and the race starts again.
We do this work every day at no cost to you, but it is far from free to produce, and we cannot afford to slow down. To ensure Snopes endures — and grows to serve more readers — we need a different kind of tip: We need your financial support.
Support Snopes so we continue to pursue the facts — for you and anyone searching for answers.