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."

12 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. Then by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  2. Option #4 by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let China go first.

    1. Re:Option #4 by WormholeFiend · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then Mars would be red in more than one way

  3. that's why China will do it and we won't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Ethical is irrelevant. by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:Ethical is irrelevant. by BitterOak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      Can the astronaut accomplish the mission all by him or herself? Or does he/she need a ground crew and a team of engineers to design and build the rocket? If so, then they would all be participants in the astronaut's death. 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?

      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

      But therein lies the problem. There are other people involved.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Ethical is irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many soldiers do we send every year on possibly one way missions?

    3. Re:Ethical is irrelevant. by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You will always find people willing to die for fame. Every high publicity serial killer generates people who what to take their place on the electric chair. That does not make it ethical to kill them, just because they want you to.

      They could replace "America's Got Talent" with, "I Want to Kill Myself on Live TV" and they would not have any problem finding contestants. Would you really consider that an ethical reality TV show?

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Ethical is irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can we send politicians instead? I like the soldiers.

    5. Re:Ethical is irrelevant. by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Protip: Everyone dies. Was it ethical for your dad and mom to love you and teach you to walk and talk and make you smile with ice cream knowing the inevitable result is your death?

      Death is part of life, a meaningful death is worth living for and the pinnacle of what it means to live.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
  5. robots by gronofer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:Ethics is Relative. PERIOD. by pepty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.