Death in Space | Hacker News Reader

Death in Space

boingboing.net

64 pointsygd62 comments

I find quite absurd the concept of bringing back home the explorer's dead body. Seamen traditionally are buried at sea, it seems quite obvious that the right thing to do for a space explorer is to be made a permanent asteroid.

Rationally it doesn't make a difference, but if buried at sea, your body can be absorbed by earth and become part of the next cycle of life.

Had it been me, I'd prefer to be shot into space. In a zillion years, there's a miniscule chance to be discovered by another species. In the at least, I'll eventually turn into stardust and become part of another cycle of magnificient mystery in the universe.

Isn't that thought more tantalizing than being buried on Earth?

Not sure, is there actually a cycle in the universe (don't know what the latest theory is).? I suppose if a body in space becomes stardust eventually, so will the whole earth. So either way you end up as stardust.

All the planets and stars that you see in the sky (and earth) where made from spacedust. So yes you would be part of the cycle of the universe, possibly even creating new life :)

Who knows, perhaps we were created from some dead aliens shot into space.

I think that actually happens in one of the sequels to 2001, but my memory is fuzzy about it.

The problem then is that, while a dead seamen doesn't pose a threat to the ship, in the case of a dead astronaut, you must be sure the body's trajectory won't intersect your own at any significant speed.

It cannot intersect your own at significant speed, unless you expend significant energy to diverge your trajectory. Otherwise it simply continues to accompany you at some slightly varying distance.

Makes looking out the window slightly disturbing.

Unless the body passes by a big mass and gets accelerated in your direction. The last thing you need for the morale of the crew is to have your fellow shipmate splattered on your windshield.

The odds are low, but it's worth the care.

Space is really, really, really big.

I think the author is underestimating the psychology of astronauts. We often think of them as some kind of scientist or explorer but in fact they are an elite military force, made up of the sort of men that we would expect to fly dangerously unpredictable test aircraft.

Anyone being sent into space is well aware that they have about a one-in-twenty chance of not coming back. They are selected and trained on the understanding that if they become unwell in space, they could jeopardise the lives of their fellow crewmen.

Repatriation of remains is an unaffordable luxury in space and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. No-one with the constitution to be an astronaut would allow their own death to hamper a mission.

As to whether Mars is worth dying for - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/390933.stm

I'm always amazed at the amount of thought that people seem to put into the handling of their bodies after they're dead. Elaborate rituals and strange requests that provide no benefit to them and only seem to inconvenience the people who are in fact still alive.

"Elaborate rituals and strange requests that provide no benefit to them and only seem to inconvenience the people who are in fact still alive."

Exactly the other way round. The rituals are solely for the benefit of those still living to better deal with their grief and loss.

I suppose strange requests could become an inconvenience. But Hunter Thompson's request that he be sent up as fireworks for his friends to observe and enjoy, for example, seems less an inconvenience and more a thoughtful gesture to those he left behind.

So it all depends on the request, I guess.

This makes sense in many religious contexts. For instance, traditional Christianity asserts belief in the "resurrection of the body." This implies that the body isn't a mere shell to be cast off, but is actually part of what made the person who they are, and is worthy of respect. Thus you have saints relics in Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

I assume that other religions offer explanatory contexts for their rituals as well. These may or not make sense when transferred to a modern secular society.

I think it is important to note that ceremonial burial was practiced by archaic secular societies as well - including Neanderthals. I think that we need some sort of group activity to help us transition to new situations - ie graduations, weddings, funerals, in Japan there are now wedding-like ceremonies for divorce with both families attending.

I think at its basic level there is something along these lines: change is uncertain, the group is here to witness the change and the group is not startled, I'm ok because the group is ok.

Good point about it being group response to change. I guess I was thinking more of the particular ways in which the rituals are shaped by the surrounding religious culture.

"ceremonial burial was practiced by archaic secular societies as well - including Neanderthals."

Is there evidence regarding religious belief among the Neanderthals? I'd love to read some material on that.

How do we know Neanderthal society was "secular"?

You got me - we don't really know either way.

Do you have more information about the divorce ceremonies?

Here is a link:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65K3YV20100621

What if the dead body is your mother, your husband, your son, your sister? Traditions provide structure for grief and are of considerable benefit.

Sentiment. Darn those inconvenient old emotions.

Do people's desires expire when they do? If we do not call irrational a will directing someone's worldly goods to his descendents, why would we call irrational Hunter S. Thompson's wish to be shot out of a giant cannon?

Posthumous fame: we all want it, always did, always will.

Reminds me of this proposal: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/669/1

One man, one way to Mars. There's no need to carry a body then.

I'm surprised that anyone willing to risk a mission to mars wouldn't be satisfied with the glory alone of attempting such a mission. I suppose the religious reasons are what would motivate people to want this.

Seems a shame to deliberately destroy the frozen body, when there are people back on earth paying to be vitrified and kept artificially frozen for a chance (however small) of resurrection. And I would think an explorer would prefer a tombstone as a last mark on the new world.

There is nothing on Mars worth dying for. Build the lander if you must, let the defense contractors collect their contracts, then blow it up on the launchpad. All objectives accomplished, everyone goes home to their families.

"There is nothing on Mars worth dying for." And this is exactly what is wrong with society right now. We have become so accustomed to our little comforts that we have become completely risk-averse. I'll take an opposing viewpoint and say that it's worth dying for "just because it's there" to paraphrase Sir Edmund Hillary.

It was George Mallory who allegedly replied, "Because it's there!" to the question "Why do you want to climb Mount Everest?".

I stand corrected & honor you with a tasty upvote snack, Sir. Thanks for making re-read the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mallory

It's a cracking entry too!

I had the pleasure of meeting Noel Odell at the RGS (Royal Geographic Society) in London once when Doug Scott was presenting. It was like I imagine meeting Einstein. He "knew" that Mallory topped out, and because of that, so do I. But I also agree that a climb is not completed until you get down, so Ed and Tenzing hold their place, regardless.

There may not be much on Mars worth dying for for you, but there are people who have died for a lot less glory than landing on a new planet.

Let each choose his own.

I'd be more sympathetic if I didn't have to pay for them to die gloriously. Not much more sympathetic, granted.

Considering what you otherwise pay for to defense spending, payment to banks and blowing people in the middle east up, the price of a mission to Mars would be very little.

Literally true. Consider what awesome things could have been built with the trillion spent on Iraq. A space elevator, a mars mission, a moon base. Not or... and!

Even more money was spent on the stimulus. Somehow, it wasn't as stimulating as colonizing a new planet.

Except the stimulus didn't kill tens of thousands and drove many thousands others into extremism. That makes it a far lesser evil imho.

But you already do that. Might as well reallocate some funding.

We're on borrowed time on this particular rock. I think the continued existence of the human race is a pursuit worth dying for.

I agree, though I see no harm in waiting a bit. Going to Mars soon feels like an attempt to build a billion dollar supercomputer in 1979. Technology useful for space missions moves slower than computers alone, but I can't help but think that in just 50 years we'd be far more prepared if we diverted today's Mars cash into robotic space exploration and, particularly, space mining research.

It isn't minerals we're running out of. If we, as a species, expect to survive, we're going to have to stay at a population below the carrying capacity of this planet. Failing that (and we are failing badly, a fact barely disguised by petrochemical fertilizers) we need to spread. There's good reason to believe that Mars can be terraformed (imperfectly, since there won't be adequate natural magnetic shielding against radiation). Colonization technologies are what we desperately need to work on. Mining's the easy part once we're there; food and water are a little more difficult to dig for.

I highly recommend the Mars trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. It's fiction, so the science is suspect in places, but it raises a lot of fascinating issues - the main one being that the science and engineering behind keeping Martian settlers alive might be the easy part. The politics of what happens on a new planet is the hard part.

Fertilizers can last forever. Matter is not actually used up.

As long as we have enough energy, we can make fertilizers. Of course, petrochemicals are a nice raw material, but not necessary.

And we are not running out of energy, anytime soon. (Though we may run out of oil.)

The conservation of matter is an amazing thing.

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe - Carl Sagan

Yes. Though to be more precise, in the process of using fertilizers, even the atoms are conserved. Though you will have to re-build the molecules.

On the practical side: Using coal as a raw material, you should be able to make fertilizers with only somewhat more energy than from oil.

Colonization, or simply shoot for drastic population reduction in the next century. Given the evidence of previous extinction events, I'm betting on the latter 'solution' for now.

I'm pretty ignorant of geology.. The main reason I added space mining was because a rush for resources, especially commercially exploitable ones, seems to have spurred significant third party interest in risky exploration.

Rather than the government funding everything, the mere possibility of being able to find a 100 ton lump of gold (or whatever) would get multiple space exploration efforts kicked up the butt immediately ;-)

Computers only advanced though because we tried to build better ones. You don't build better muscles by lifting weights you can already lift.

If we want to advance our Space Travel technology, we need to keep trying to do things beyond our reach, to force us to improve.

I wondered about that but dismissed the idea because computers and survival technology seem to have both come on leaps and bounds in the last 20 years without significant government or space program involvement. Or no?

actually you do, but I completely agree with your point despite that :)

http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Must-Colonize-Space/lm/15QM4CUB...

http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space.htm

http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm

http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/lifeboat.htm

People don't assume great risk to die; they do it to truly live.

Give up and hide in your cave, and you are dead already.

This might just be the very first time I saw you downvoted.

I sincerely disagree. The only valid question is whether the time is right - that's something you can argue about.

I certainly hope we're not spending a lot of money on death-in-space scenarios.

Wrap the body up, strap a 4-kilo rocket on it, say some nice words, and off she goes. No new technology or engineering required.

Unfair question, but it's how I feel: Does NASA always have to have some great new over-engineered plan for every little new thing they come across?

You might want to reclaim the bodies water first, ala Dune.

This doesn't seem any more over engineered than the US Military philosophy of always recovering fallen soldiers and bringing them home. (I like it)

Of course they do. NASA doesn't actually do anything but make plans any more - so the more elaborate and wasteful their plan-making is, the more money they can try to claim from congress.

This could actually be useful for a mission to Mars. Every bit of biomass available for a biodome (if such a thing could be maintained) would be vital.

It seems wrong to return the body - wouldn't it be better to bury it where it died (if on Mars) or send it into space ala Star Trek (complete with bagpipes).

That would have been my choice anyway.

where is that background image from?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com