Death in space: The ethics of dealing with astronauts’ bodies(slate.com)
slate.com
Death in space: The ethics of dealing with astronauts’ bodies
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/04/death_in_space_the_ethics_of_dealing_with_astronauts_bodies.single.html
4 comments
> If I have gone to all the trouble of getting to Mars, don't you dare send my body back to Earth.
Completely agreed.
> And if I don't quite make it there, just launch my body out towards somewhere like Kepler-186f (...)
So now instead of a bigger grave or tombstone, your family will have to pay for a bigger delta-v budget ;).
Completely agreed.
> And if I don't quite make it there, just launch my body out towards somewhere like Kepler-186f (...)
So now instead of a bigger grave or tombstone, your family will have to pay for a bigger delta-v budget ;).
As another poster mentioned, one could easily imagine other uses for human remains.
Were I to pass away during early colonization of Mars I do believe I'd enjoy being the guest and course of honor at a proper wake.
At least they'll be able to properly criticize my taste!
Were I to pass away during early colonization of Mars I do believe I'd enjoy being the guest and course of honor at a proper wake.
At least they'll be able to properly criticize my taste!
It is interesting that in western society (and perhaps society in general, I don't claim to know) cannibalism is considered one of the most horrifying things you can do... except in cases where it is necessary to stay alive. Pretty much nobody faults people for resorting to cannibalism when the choice is cannibalism or death. We might dance around it and avoid talking about it, but we are pretty understanding when it comes to a life and death situation.
We see examples of this when people are stuck in the Andes or on a life raft in the middle of the ocean.
In situations where negligence of the cannibals is seen to have contributed to the circumstances that lead to the necessity of cannibalism, we are a bit less forgiving. For example the Donner Party.
We see examples of this when people are stuck in the Andes or on a life raft in the middle of the ocean.
In situations where negligence of the cannibals is seen to have contributed to the circumstances that lead to the necessity of cannibalism, we are a bit less forgiving. For example the Donner Party.
I'm forgiving of anyone who eats human flesh out of necessity, regardless of the circumstances that got them there.
Donner party included.
Donner party included.
It is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and
become one with all the people.
-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Ethics for Tomorrow"
-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang, "Ethics for Tomorrow"
Those quotes were miles beyond any other game. Someone deserves kudos for all the work they put into those.
Practicality over emotions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
I go two ways on this. If I'm dead, whatever I am, I'm gone. My body isn't me. Do whatever you want with it. (For example, I carry a donor card.) Stuff it out the airlock. Leave it behind on another planet. Whatever. I won't care one way or the other.
On the other hand, as Frank Herbert said in Dune, the line between humans and animals (or maybe something more like civilization and savagery?) begins with how we treat the dead. It matters, not so much for the dead person, but for society as a whole.
So maybe the answer is something like this: Treat the dead bodies with as much dignity as circumstances permit. If circumstances don't permit any particular thing, don't worry about it.
On the other hand, as Frank Herbert said in Dune, the line between humans and animals (or maybe something more like civilization and savagery?) begins with how we treat the dead. It matters, not so much for the dead person, but for society as a whole.
So maybe the answer is something like this: Treat the dead bodies with as much dignity as circumstances permit. If circumstances don't permit any particular thing, don't worry about it.
> "in the highly probable event that the brave souls aboard Apollo 11 became stranded on the moon"
Highly probable? Is this backed up by something? I've read some on Apollo 11, but never came across the idea that the astronauts being stranded was considered a likely event.
Highly probable? Is this backed up by something? I've read some on Apollo 11, but never came across the idea that the astronauts being stranded was considered a likely event.
There were a number of scenarios where the mission might have failed. This was partly due to lack of information (can the lander actually remain vertical on lunar regolith where it is landing?) and partly due to weight contraints on the number of redundant systems.
For example the same cryopump that exploded on Apollo 13 could have had the same failure on the command module of Apollo 11 while the Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Moon.
Armstrong manually piloted the LEM due to a bug in the computer programming for the landing, and had to move laterally as the original landing site had too many boulders. He landed with less than 30 seconds of reserve propellent.
Errors in re-entry burns can lead to entering the atmosphere too quickly or too shallowly. Either are fatal.
There were many, many things that could have doomed the mission which supports the notion of 'highly probable'.
For example the same cryopump that exploded on Apollo 13 could have had the same failure on the command module of Apollo 11 while the Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Moon.
Armstrong manually piloted the LEM due to a bug in the computer programming for the landing, and had to move laterally as the original landing site had too many boulders. He landed with less than 30 seconds of reserve propellent.
Errors in re-entry burns can lead to entering the atmosphere too quickly or too shallowly. Either are fatal.
There were many, many things that could have doomed the mission which supports the notion of 'highly probable'.
"Many things can go wrong" != "failure is highly probable". You also have to think about the probability of each one of those things going wrong.
In general I agree with that, however there were many single points of failure in the Apollo program that resulted loss of crew and vehicle. In a conversational article such as this one I did not feel that the characterization was unwarranted. as I recall Michael Collins said as much in his book on the mission.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Carrying-Fire-An-Astronauts-Journeys/d...
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Carrying-Fire-An-Astronauts-Journeys/d...
A speech was even written for that possibility: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/08/26/160077053/the-e...
I've heard it described as the "greatest speech that was never given".
I've heard it described as the "greatest speech that was never given".
This is literally mentioned in the first paragraph of TFA.
Eagle's flight computer ran into problems three minutes before landing. [1] Software engineering saved the day.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(scientist)#...
Any technical failure (non-zero chance) could result in someone being stranded. I think that's all that they're referring to.
And with a whole planet filled with nothing, I think you can find room for a decent cemetery - so that in a thousand years someone can look down on my headstone and say "Here lies one of the first humans ever to set foot on Mars."
And if I don't quite make it there, just launch my body out towards somewhere like Kepler-186f, where in a million years some alien species might discover it and have proof that life does exist somewhere out there.