Advertisement

Human Place in the Outer Space: Skeptical Remarks

  • Konrad SzocikEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Space and Society book series (SPSO)

Abstract

The most skeptical contribution to this volume enumerates and discusses a broad set of challenges connected with the so-called human factor in a mission to Mars. Discussed issues include rationales for a human versus uncrewed mission (the chapter suggests that human missions could be successfully replaced by robotic missions), financial challenges affected mostly by unclear and weak rationales for human mission, challenges of sustainable development, complex hazardous impacts of space environment for human mental, and physiological health. The last of the discussed challenges, the idea of human enhancement applied for the purpose of human deep-space missions, shows how technological issues—mostly long journey or ineffective countermeasures—might affect ethical concerns. While this idea might seem to be too far in the future, the chapter shows that it may be a serious and possibly unexpected long-term consequence of this program. This chapter does not determine whether a human mission to Mars is possible or not, nor whether such a mission makes any sense at all. One side of this chapter assumes that it is hard to find a strong rationale as measured in financial terms. The question of rationale is getting harder when a cost–benefit analysis—including risks for human health and life—is applied. On the other side, these skeptical remarks are designed to show that the idea of making humans a multi-planetary species is, in fact, extrapolation and projection of all problems and challenges known on Earth, which is intensified by putting Mars astronauts in the hazardous space environment.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Jacob Haqq-Misra and Koji Tachibana for their useful comments.

References

  1. Barcellos-Hoff, M. H., Blakely, E. A., Burma, S., Fornace, A. J., Jr., Gerson, S., Hlatky, L., et al. (2015). Concepts and challenges in cancer risk prediction for the space radiation environment. Life Sciences in Space Research, 6, 92–103.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beven, G. (2012). NASA’s behavioral health support for International Space Station (ISS) Missions. Cleveland Clinic Department of Psychiatry and Psychology Grand Rounds. September 13, 2012.Google Scholar
  3. Braddock, M. (2018). Next steps in space travel and colonization: Terraforming, ectogenesis, nano spacecraft and avatars. Significances of Bioengineering & Bioscience 2(4).  https://doi.org/10.31031/sbb.2018.02.000541.
  4. Cerri, M., Tinganelli, W., Negrini, M., Helm, A., Scifoni, E., Tommasino, F., et al. (2016). Hibernation for space travel: Impact on radioprotection. Life Sciences in Space Research, 11, 1–9.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, M. M., & Haeuplik-Meusburger S. (2015). What do we give up and leave behind? In 45th International Conference on Environmental Systems, 12–16 July 2015, Bellevue, Washington.Google Scholar
  6. Crawford, I. A. (2012). Dispelling the myth of robotic efficiency: Why human space exploration will tell us more about the Solar System than will robotic exploration alone. Astronomy and Geophysics 53, 2.22–2.26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Do, S., Owens, A., Ho, K., Schreiner, S., & de Weck, O. (2016). An independent assessment of the technical feasibility of the Mars One mission plan—Updated analysis. Acta Astronautica, 120, 192–228.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griko, Y., & Regan, M. D. (2018). Synthetic torpor: A method for safely and practically transporting experimental animals aboard spaceflight missions to deep space. Life Sciences in Space Research, 16, 101–107.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gyngell, Ch. (2012). Enhancing the species: Genetic engineering technologies and human persistence. Philosophy & Technology, 25, 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Irschick, D. J., & Higham, T. E. (2016). Animal athletes: An ecological and evolutionary approach. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Jakosky, B. M., & Edwards, Ch S. (2018). Inventory of CO2 available for terraforming Mars. Nature Astronomy, 2, 634–639.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kanas, N. (2015). Psychology in deep space. The Psychologist, 28, 804–807.Google Scholar
  13. Kanas, N., & Manzey D. (2008). Space psychology and psychiatry. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Kanas, N., et al. (2009). Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions. Acta Astronautica, 64(7–8), 659–677.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kiffer, F., et al. (2018). Late effects of 1H irradiation on hippocampal physiology. Life Sciences in Space Research, 17, 51–62.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, R. B. (1985). Models of human colonization:!Kung San, Greeks and Vikings. In E. Jones, & B. Finney (Eds.), Interstellar migration and the human experience (pp. 180–195). University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lester, D. F., Hodges, K. V., & Anderson, R. C. (2017). Exploration telepresence: A strategy for optimizing scientific research at remote space destinations. Science Robotics 2, eaan4383.Google Scholar
  18. McBeth, R. A., & Borak, T. B. (2018). Spatial resolution requirements for active radiation detectors used beyond low earth orbit. Life Sciences in Space Research, 18, 52–63.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McKay, Ch P, Toon, O. B., & Kasting, J. F. (1991). Making Mars habitable. Nature, 352, 489–496.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKay, Ch P. (2009). Planetary ecosynthesis on Mars: Restoration ecology and environmental ethics. In C. M. Bertka (Ed.), Exploring the origin, extent, and future of life: Philosophical ethical and theological perspectives (pp. 245–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mehta, S. K., Pierson, D. L., & Ott, C. M. (2012). Early detection of immune changes prevents painful shingles in astronauts and Earth-bound patients. In International Space Station. Benefits for Humanity.Google Scholar
  22. NASA. NASA Langley Research Center’s contributions to the Apollo program. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Apollo.html.
  23. Nechaev, A. P., Polyakov, V. V., & Morukov, B. V. (2007). Martian manned mission: What cosmonauts think about this. Acta Astronautica, 60, 351–353.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ohnishi, T., Takahashi, A., & Ohnishi, K. (2002). Studies about space radiation promote new fields in radiation biology. Journal of Radiation Research, 43(SUPPL), S7–S12.Google Scholar
  25. Ohshima, H. (2012). Preventing bone loss in space flight with Prophylactic Use of Bisphosphonate: Health Promotion of the Elderly by Space Medicine Technologies. In International Space Station. Benefits for Humanity. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits/bone_loss.html.
  26. Orosei, R., et al. (2018). Radar evidence of subglacial liquid water on Mars. Science, 25(July).  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar7268,aar7268.
  27. Rovetto, R. J. (2013). The essential role of human spaceflight. Space Policy, 29(4), 225–228.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rovetto, R. J. (2016). Defending spaceflight—The echoes of Apollo. Space Policy, 38, 68–78.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salotti, J.-M., & Suhir, E. (2014). Manned missions to Mars: Minimizing risks of failure. Acta Astronautica, 93, 148–161.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schroeder, R. (2018). Microgels for long-term storage of vitamins for extended spaceflight. Life Sciences in Space Research, 16, 26–37.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shelhamer, M. (2017). Why send humans into space? Science and non-science motivations for human space flight. Space Policy, 42, 37–40.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Slakey, F., & Spudis, P. D. (2008). Robots vs. Humans: Who should explore space? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robots-vs-humans-who-should-explore/
  33. Smith, C. M., & Davies, E. T. (2012). Emigrating beyond Earth: Human adaptation and space colonization. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Szocik, K. (2019a). Should and could humans go to Mars? Yes, but not now and not in the near future. Futures 105, 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Szocik, K. (Ed.). (2019b). Human enhancements in Lunar, Martian, and future missions to the outer planets.Google Scholar
  36. Szocik, K., & Tachibana, K. (2019). Human enhancement or “dangerous” AI? Ethical consequences of advanced progress in human and uncrewed space program (in press).Google Scholar
  37. Szocik, K., Campa, R., Rappaport, M. B., & Corbally, Ch. (In press a). Changing the paradigm on human enhancements. The special case of modifications to counter bone loss for manned Mars missions.Google Scholar
  38. Szocik, K., Wójtowicz, T., Rappaport, M. B., & Corbally, Ch. (In press b) Mission to Mars: A challenge for the ethics of human health and biology.Google Scholar
  39. Tachibana, K., Tachibana, S., & Inoue, N. (2017). From outer space to Earth—The social significance of isolated and confined environment research in human space exploration. Acta Astronautica, 140, 273–283.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Townsend, L. W., et al. (2018). Solar particle event storm shelter requirements for missions beyond low Earth orbit. Life Sciences in Space Research, 17, 32–39.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valentine, D. (2017). Gravity fixes: Habituating to the human on Mars and Island Three. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(3), 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weinberg, S. (2013). Response: Against manned space flight programs. Space Policy, 29(4), 229–230.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weintraub, D. A. (2018). Life on Mars. What to know before we go. Princeton University Press: Princeton and Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Cognitive ScienceUniversity of Information Technology and Management in RzeszowRzeszówPoland

Personalised recommendations