Slashdot Mirror
NASA Can't Ethically Send Astronauts On One-Way Missions To Deep Space
Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "If NASA is serious about deep space missions, it's going to have to change its safety guidelines, because there's no conceivable way that, within the next few years, our engineering capabilities or understanding of things like radiation exposure in space are going to advance far enough for a mission to Mars to be acceptably "safe" for NASA. So, instead, the agency commissioned the National Academies Institute of Medicine to take a look at how it can ethically go about changing those standards. The answer? It likely can't.
In a report released today, the National Academies said that there are essentially three ways NASA can go about doing this, besides completely abandoning deep space forever: It can completely liberalize its health standards, it can establish more permissive "long duration and exploration health standards," or it can create a process by which certain missions are exempt from its safety standards. The team, led by Johns Hopkins University professor Jeffrey Kahn, concluded that only the third option is remotely acceptable."
In a report released today, the National Academies said that there are essentially three ways NASA can go about doing this, besides completely abandoning deep space forever: It can completely liberalize its health standards, it can establish more permissive "long duration and exploration health standards," or it can create a process by which certain missions are exempt from its safety standards. The team, led by Johns Hopkins University professor Jeffrey Kahn, concluded that only the third option is remotely acceptable."
The only danger is if they send [them] to that terrible Planet of the Apes.
Wait a minute....
THL phish sticks
If they can't send them ethically, then send them unethically. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure THAT out.
rewriting history since 2109
Let China go first.
We've lost all tolerance for risk or voluntary harm in the pursuit of a larger objective.
But no worries. China is picking up where the USA left off on a lot of fronts.
Whether sending a willing astronaut, who understands and chose to do this of his own free will, on a dangerous or even one-way mission is ethical is not a question for anyone except the astronaut. It's like trying to decide if gay marriage is "ethical". Unless you're one of the ones involved, nonya business trying to define ethics.
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
There's no conceivable way that, within the next few years, our engineering capabilities or understanding of things will be able to do a manned deep space mission to Mars, safe or not. We could try to just put a bunch of guys in a box and send it that way. I doubt we could design, build, orbit, and then get the box on it's way in the "next few years". Let's be serious. Nobody with space capability is looking at a Mars mission any time soon (next few decades*). The level of complexity needed will take time, research, and money. We didn't go to the moon till Apollo 11. Once you start seeing your Mars missions planned, let alone counting up, then we can start being serious about going to Mars. Seriously, we need to test deep space habitats. Long term independent space habitats. Long range movement of large structural objects in space. I bet we will have a deep space station and have sent something similar in a long trip around the moon long before we attempt Mars.
*Elon Musk said it's possible in the next 10-12 years. I think he is just being overly optimistic, and that is overly optimistic, to get in the papers.
The hell you can't. What that's saying is "we refuse to honor the wishes of educated, rational adults to make decisions we wouldn't". I guarantee that all of the Mercury astronauts knew there was a good chance they were going to die during each mission. They knew the failure modes, the risks, the potential ways they might get splattered across our planet in fiery ashes. And they still wanted to go! I cannot understand how it could possibly be unethical to explain the dangers and still give candidates the right to say, "yeah, I know I'm not coming back. For personal pride, for adventure, for my country, and for humanity I choose to go anyway. Now step aside and light this candle."
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
...otherwise it is guaranteed that thousands will die. I like this line of reasoning.
Stick to robotic missions, which are better value for money anyway. Humans are tied to Earth more strongly than science fiction would have you believe.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Magellan didn't survive Magellan's expedition. Scott died trying to get to the South Pole. Mallory died climbing Mt Everest.
How many still die climbing everest even though its been climbed thousands of times? How many people die in bat-suits?
We are not talking about forcing people to take risks, but rather of looking for people who are willing to risk death to become immortalized in history. Have we become such collective cowards that we will not accept risks that daredevils accept daily for fun?
Take volunteers. Make sure that they understand the risk and are not in any way coerced. Send them out. If they die, build a grand monument to their heroism, and look for more volunteers. If they succeed build grand monuments, and bury them there when they die later - as they inevitably will.
In a hundred years everyone reading this will be dead. Give a few of them a chance to do die doing something magnificent.
I have a chronic disease that can be controlled through medication that already limits my lifespan.
Because of this I deliberately have no children or spouse and I avoid developing long term relationships.
My Parents are old and are unlikely to outlive me anyway.
I am aware of the implications of a one way trip to Mars and realise I wont be coming back and wont have any new companions for at least 10 years... if ever.
Send me.
Particularly, those with a number of years left of health, but for which eventually, will die anyways.
Good news! That already describes all of our astronauts.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Most early voyagers to the New World knew they were basically heading to a vast mass of untouched wilderness. People going to Mars will be heading for a cold, barren desert with no oxygen, and there won't be any natives to bail them out when they starve either.
OTOH, there are no natives to eat them either.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If I decide I want to die and I hand you a gun and ask you to shoot me, is it ethical for you to do so?
Yes. Of course. Wouldn't it be ethical for me to inject your life-ending serum were you in terrible pain and wanted to die? OK, what if the pain is mental? What if there is no pain and you're sacrificing yourself for science? Look, just because some folks have a problem with killing people that want to die doesn't mean it's unethical to end people's lives when they really do want to die. That's their life, it's their choice.
You had better wise up quick. Our technological progress may eventually render us immortal. We already have stem-cell brain injections and neuroplasticity drugs to help repair and improve brain function. We'll probably have lab grown 3D printed replacement organs in a decade or so (12 years was the time-line I last saw). Our machine complexity is increasing at an exponential rate. Machines have gained capabilities in a few short decades that took us organic lifeforms billions of years to achieve. So, what happen when you're an immortal? Everyone lives forever whether they want to or not? Fuck. That. Hard.
I've got a game plot I'm working on where we deal with some of these ethical issues. Perhaps in a post-death world old timers will be the ones doing the really risky jobs that machines still can't do because they've been everywhere, done everything, and they aren't all geniuses constantly contributing to science. The ones who want to benefit their society best may decide to do so by taking really dangerous jobs or even suicide missions, boldly going where no man has gone before instead of just wasting resources thinking the same old thoughts and seeing the same old things. Whereas others explore the limits of understanding, they may choose to become daredevils exploring the limits of reality and life itself. In death they can become heroes and die knowing they have sacrificed themselves for the greater good of all.
We don't have to wait for immortality to realize these are noble causes. It's not like we have a shortage of humans that it would cripple us if a few decided to give their lives in the name of science.
If you don't have the freedom to peacefully sacrifice yourself for your species, planet, country, family, etc... then you don't have free will. No one is obliged to help you off yourself, but if they do it's not unethical. Are you even aware of the history of space exploration, or exploration in general? You sound like one of those brain-washed fools who advocate against free will of the terminally ill just to make the medical establishment a huge fortune, profiting via human suffering; Meanwhile staving kids fight wars over diamonds, electronics scraps, or food, with AK47s in Africa and you're not lobbying congress to do jack shit about it. I sure hope I'm wrong about you. Someday you might be one who's begging for death. If you keep that bullshit opinion of yours now, I hope that happens and your kids say, "Sorry gramps, looks like another 8-10 years of excruciating pain. You're not in control of your own life anymore because Pfizer has to make a buck somehow!"
Seriously. How the fuck did this moron get rated so highly is beyond me. Dying for piddling oil wars is somehow acceptable, but to advance the human space frontier is questionably not ethical?! Fuck all those mods, apparently you're not the same species as me after all.
Seriously. How the fuck did this moron get rated so highly is beyond me.
Perhaps because instead of being a self righteous prick he expressed a valid point very clearly and simply. You on the other hand....
We sent people up into space when we thought there was a 50/50 chance they'd die in the process.
It's called "being an astronaut".
Don't like, don't sign up.
Wimps.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Hell yeah. It's OK to send 18 year old barely-not-children-anymore to the hell hole Middle East with a pretty decent chance of dying - and usually for something shitty like a roadside bomb on top of it - not even in direct combat defending something - just in hopes that if they survive their education will be paid for - yet it's not ethical for someone to go to freaking Mars voluntarily if they want?
To quote you - Fuck. That. Hard.
Our priorities here are beyond fucked - but you only have to look at the war budget vs the NASA budget to know that. I'm sure someone has the statistics, but I'm pretty sure that what we spend on NASA in a year is equivalent to what - hours, days in war funding for the Middle East?
The justification for sending 18 year olds to hell holes has always been that the consequences of not doing so would be much much worse. I won't comment on how often that justification was valid (cause it would get depressing) but in this case we don't even have that justification/rationalization. The only reason is the chance of a "Hey look! I'm on Mars!" tweet/selfie, and the research that could have been done cheaper by robots.
There is absolutely no comparison.
First, all major cities in human history have had homeless people living in them...this isn't about that at all
***population density*** in Detroit/Chicago is much less by several orders of magnitude.
America doesn't have slums like this: http://image.architonic.com/im...
China has **slum cities** with no city sewage services...with >10,000 people living in it
**that** is shitting in the streets
Thank you Dave Raggett
No, it is not that you can't ever send a person on a mission with a high risk of premature death - it is that you need a compelling reason to do so.
What is the compelling reason here? Is the compelling reason that the astronaut can collect scientific data that a robot cannot? This is a ridiculous proposition, if you give it any serious thought at all. Any instrument the astronaut can operate, a robot can operate with remote human guidance. Cameras can see anything the astronaut can see through his helmet or window, and much, much better too. Mechanical tactile sensors can be vastly more sensitive than hands reaching through thick pressurized gloves.
Or do you imagine that this lone astronaut will perform science that cannot be matched by, oh, 100,000 scientists back on Earth not tasked with life-and-death survival problems every second of every day?
And sample return missions are far more productive when you don't need to return a scientist and all of his/her life support equipment, before you get your first gram of actual sample.
Bottom line - sending a person to Mars has vastly less scientific value than spending the same amount on robotic missions, collecting data for the world's scientists.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
A robot that costs and has the mass budget of a human mission could easily do all those things and more. Current robotic missions have mass/energy budgets that are a small fraction of anything a manned mission could be.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
There most certainly are plenty of healthy people who could go. However, I disagree that younger people could perform better than older people. Okay, the terminally ill would be a poor choice.
In a low (1/6G on the moon, for example), older folks would be just as capable as younger ones to perform low G construction, scientific testing, spaceport management, all kinds of stuff. In fact, many of the jobs necessary in low gravity/free fall would be just fine for those in their late fifties and sixties.
In fact, they would be a wonderful resource for long-term missions to the outer planets as well as helping to engineer space habitats, moon facilities and even martian exploration.
As long as the worker is healthy enough to survive the trip to LEO, they should be perfectly able to perform tasks for which they are trained (how many engineers, scientists and the myriad of other specialties required for space exploration, development and colonization are in that age range? A whole lot). Unless, of course, you think that somehow being older makes you less intellectually capable. The average lifespan of an American is somewhere around 75 years. I ask again, why waste a valuable resource?
What is more, this would obviate many of the evolutionary and ethical issues seen with younger participants.
I'm approaching 50, and I'll let you in on a little secret, we're not as tough as we act at this age. I had better senses, attention span, cognitive speed, reflexes, learning speed, joint mobility, stamina and a host of other useful, animal skills when I was 25 to 35 years old. Of course, I'm still "better with age" but that's basically experience at work, and 99% of what makes me better today than I was 20 years ago can be replaced by a team of experts at the other end of a radio link.
If I were the mission planner and I could have a ground crew of 200, but only 12 on the mission, I'd keep the grey hair down with their families, let 'em work ordinary 8 hour shifts and take normal vacations - you get better people that way, and you want the best people you can get. If you take the brightest, most talented and experienced person and caffeine fuel them for 18 hour shifts, you're still not getting better performance than you would from a team of 3 people who have figured out what's important to them in life and also happen to be experts in their field.
So, I'm saying, put the wunder-kind on the mission vehicle, support them with experienced ground crew. When the pioneers have established a reliable shirt-sleeve living and working environment that doesn't demand too much of the residents, then think about sending the old folks - they'll be able to contribute in great ways; but for pioneers you're better off working with people that don't have heavy family ties, arthritis, kidney stones and the occasional cancer that needs treatment.
There is a difference between a risky endeavour and certain death.
Not really. There are some fields of endeavor that are incredibly, inherently, irreducibly dangerous. Space travel is one of them. There's not much of a gap between, say, a 25% chance of fiery or icy death and a 100% one. It's certainly not the same as the difference between driving to work and taking flight in a space shuttle.
Instinctively, we accept risk of death when the reward justifies it. Being a successful astronaut is rewarding - in terms of prestige if nothing else.
Have you ever listened to an astronaut? To a person, they'd all return to space in a heartbeat if asked. Their motivations have very little to do with personal prestige - they just want to return to the stars.
A compelling scientific mission that will add to human knowledge is arguably more rewarding for civilization, but not for the individual who dies, and the reward is too abstract for our instinctive response.
There's no place for instinctive response here. My instincts are that climbing into a tin foil capsule on top of a fuel tank filled with 5 million pounds of kerosene and LOX is insane. And yet people have worked out the risk-reward calculations and decided that hey, this is a good thing we should do.
Plus it's not obvious that there is a lot that live astronauts can do that do that robots can't.
Well, other than collect data on the effects of deep space travel on human physiology, and the ever-present "anything a robot hasn't been specifically designed to do".
Simply 'being first' will not be a compelling reason for others to enable suicide, or be left to watch it helplessly from a distance.
Then use any of the other millions of reasons why human space travel is something we need to start figuring out and practicing.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?