Ethicists Tell NASA How To Weigh Hazards Of Space Travel

Current robotics is still not quite up to the task.

Regarding this part: "The committee disagreed with the idea, however, that it was enough to simply tell astronauts the risks and let them make an informed choice"

My problem with that is the assumption is that an individual's life does not belong to that individual.

This relates to the point of Rand Simberg's book "Safety is Not an Option". We are not willing to let people to risk their lives for the purpose of advancing us into space because we don't value the goal enough.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sraj
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 9:30 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Ethicists Tell NASA How To Weigh Hazards Of Space Travel

Do we need to revise the whole strategy of space exploration? Perhaps use Robots to set up facilities before humans step in?
Before sending humans to Mars we could send robots and get them engaged in agriculture and setting up of facilities.

Regards,
Selvaraj

On 3 April 2014 17:14, sraj > wrote:

Exploring Mars or an asteroid means that NASA will have to grant exceptions to its current standards for protecting astronauts from radiation and other health risks, an expert panel warned on Wednesday.

The Institute of Medicine panel said the agency should not revise the standards wholesale, but should make exceptions for long space trips only on a "mission by mission" basis, after a heightened ethics review that weighs the social benefits of the mission against the cost to the astronauts. On their return, the astronauts should also be guaranteed lifetime health benefits, the panel said. .....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140402-astronaut-mars-trip-health-science/

On 3 April 2014 17:08, sraj > wrote:

In his view, managers shouldn't be the ones to decide whether an increased risk of cancer years in the future is worth the chance to do a specific mission. "Decisions like that ought to be up to the astronaut," Lu says.

The committee disagreed with the idea, however, that it was enough to simply tell astronauts the risks and let them make an informed choice, says Kahn.

"There needs to be a decision made about levels of risk being acceptable," says Kahn, "before astronauts are given the opportunity to make a decision to participate or not."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247407/NASA_severs_most_of_its_Russian_ties

Current robotics is still not quite up to the task.

Regarding this part: "
The committee disagreed with the idea, however, that it was enough to simply tell astronauts the risks and let them make an informed choice
"

My problem with that is the assumption is that an individual's life does not belong to that individual.

This relates to the point of Rand Simberg's book "Safety is Not an Option". We are not willing to let people to risk their lives for the purpose of advancing us into space because we don't value the goal enough.

Regards,
Mike Combs

From:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com [mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of
sraj
Sent:
Thursday, April 03, 2014 9:30 AM
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: Ethicists Tell NASA How To Weigh Hazards Of Space Travel

Do we need to revise the whole strategy of space exploration? Perhaps use Robots to set up facilities before humans step in?
Before sending humans to Mars we could send robots and get them engaged in agriculture and setting up of facilities.

Regards,
Selvaraj

On 3 April 2014 17:14, sraj <
sraj99@...
> wrote:
Exploring Mars
or an asteroid means that NASA will have to grant exceptions to its current standards for protecting astronauts from radiation and other health risks, an expert panel warned on Wednesday.
The
Institute of Medicine
panel said the agency should not revise the standards wholesale, but should make exceptions for long space trips only on a "mission by mission" basis, after a heightened ethics review that weighs the social benefits of the mission against the cost to the astronauts. On their return, the astronauts should also be guaranteed lifetime health benefits, the panel said. .....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140402-astronaut-mars-trip-health-science/

On 3 April 2014 17:08, sraj <
sraj99@...
> wrote:
In his view, managers shouldn't be the ones to decide whether an increased risk of cancer years in the future is worth the chance to do a specific mission. "Decisions like that ought to be up to the astronaut," Lu says.
The committee disagreed with the idea, however, that it was enough to simply tell astronauts the risks and let them make an informed choice, says Kahn.
"There needs to be a decision made about levels of risk being acceptable," says Kahn, "before astronauts are given the opportunity to make a decision to participate or not."
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247407/NASA_severs_most_of_its_Russian_ties