Since there is no gravity in space; do female astronauts wear bras?
There is still gravity, just not enough for you to be terribly affected by it.
Despite the distance from a gravitational source, objects still have a mass and momentum while in motion. A female astronaut would still benefit from having a bra on, if for no other reason that to keep things under control while she is moving around.
There is still gravity. You’re just too far away from the mass to be terribly affected by it.
Despite the distance from a gravitational source, objects still have a mass, and have momentum while in motion. A female astronaut would still benefit from having a bra on, if for no other reason that to keep things under control while she is moving around.
…It’s just such an important message that it bears repeating!
~~Baloo
[sub]Thanks for the setup, Stupendous man![/sub]
Both of the posts so far seem to have a common misconception about gravity, that is, if they are referring to low Earth orbit. (This is the orbital altitude of the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.) At an orbit of about 600 km above the surface of the Earth, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation indicates that an object’s weight is about 80% of what it would be on the surface of the Earth. The reason objects appear to be APPARENTLY “weightless” in low Earth orbit is NOT because they are particularly far from the Earth, but because they are in free-fall.
They are weightless for the same reason that passengers in a falling elevator (with a cut cable) would feel apparently weightless.
Referring to the statement, “There is still gravity, just not enough for you to be terribly affected by it,” the statement is completely erroneous. In fact, if one was not being affected by gravity, one would not stay in orbit, but would go off in a straight line.
If the discussion is referring to an situation deep in outer space, far from any massive object, the previous posted statements are OK. However, I have seen misconceptions about why objects in low Earth orbit are weightless time and again. It is particularly inexcusable in textbooks (typically introductory science textbooks).
Now aren’t normal bras designed under the assumption that gravity will push downwards? So would a bra designed to work in space have to provide “support” from all directions? Like a full cone?
Yeah, well, let’s not wander too far afield here. The main point of the original question was clearly about bras, not about the finer points of weightlessness. Clearly, there’s a potential for serious eyestrain on the part of the male astronauts here.
ohhh… space bra… technology AND sex…
the 21st centuary’s gonna rock!
Isaac Asimov’s novel The Gods Themselves?! imagined a moon colony where women didn’t wear bras thanks to the low gravity and in fact went altogether topless.
Many sports bras are designed to minimize movement in all directions. Basically, they work by immobilizing the breasts, either by encapsulating them in supportive cups, or by smooshing them flat against the chest. There are many “light duty” sports bras that aren’t quite strong enough to stand up to, say, a jogging D-cup, but are still supportive enough for everyday activities–and they are frequently soft and comfy.
If I were to enter a weightless environment, I would certainly wear a bra. I would hate to have my boobies flapping around in all directions at once. I would probably choose one of the soft sports bras.
[homer]Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, boooobies!!![/homer]
I would think that those female astronauts who were, uhm, less endowed wouldn’t need to wear a bra…
SF authors have considered this at some length.
Arthur C. Clarke in “Rendezvous with Rama” : “Weightlessness did things to their breasts that were too distrcting. He could think of several space accients that might have ben caused by the passage of unholstered female ersonnel.” (A semiquote from memory)
Robert Heinlein in “Expanded Universe” (praticaly the last page) “Just wait 'til you see what zero gravity does to a 100 centimeter bust.”
Of course the down side of this (NPI) is that when the astronettes get old, their breasts will sag up.
ok, I usually try to check into any thread about astronomy or the space program…and let me just say that this is one of the funniest questions on this subject that I’ve heard
I don’t know the answer to this one, but it seems like some women astronauts may want to wear 'em for control. Or at least to keep the male astronauts from leering all the time.
Good point by robby. There’s still plenty of gravity up there (gravity is what keeps them in orbit)…it’s just that the shuttle is travelling so fast that the astronauts are kept in a state of free-fall, so it feels like there is no gravity.
I read that it’s around 90F most of the time in the shuttle, so whatever undergarments they wear would have to be comfortable in the heat. I imagine they wear sport bras as a result.
How come no one has raised the related male issue on this: Boxers or briefs? Surely they don’t want their “packages” drifting about uncontrollably. One false move, and… well, you know.
I just wanted to know that if a female went through life in space, how would the seemingly weightless environment effect the developement of the breast. If my feild of expertise, I often encounter breasts effected by gravity very much so.
I believe that is “wander[ing] to far afield”
Even though gravity is not a factor while in orbit, there are still inertial forces to deal with. You don’t want some voluptuous astronaut’s 44 DD’s flopping around like water balloons on rubber bands. Could be a safety hazard.
At this point, I would like to personally volunteer my consulting services in the area of women’s space underwear to NASA (or any other interested agency) for $10/hr. I’d offer more, but that’s all I can afford to pay.
There haven’t been any posts to this thread by women, have there? snortle
Someone, somewhere, sometime… ought to adapt this novel into a film. 
What do I look like, chopped liver?