Pages Menu
Categories Menu
FORUM

FORUM

Welcome to the Objective Europa forum for general debate and discussions in areas related to a crewed mission to Jovian moon Europa. Suggestions and ideas in the forum will not be filed as part of the research in phase-I.

  • If you have not registered for the forum, please do so (see login link below).
  • Please browse through the topics to find a relevant space for your input.
  • Posting image concepts, links to relevant Europa topics and video are encouraged.
  • We encourage you or others to gather your concepts and ideas from this forum in reports for phase-I.
  • Contact via forum-email if you have suggestions for additional topics or categories.
  • Flaming, trolling and libel activity are cause for immediate post deletion and login denial.

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.

Pages: 1 2
Author Topic: Sustainability vs. Terminality


Pascal
Administrator
Posts: 12
Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: September 24, 2013, 18:59

If this mission were to be organized in such a way that there would be an end to supplies, oxygen, or other necessary items, suicide would have to be an option to the crew. They would need to know exactly how much time they had on the expedition before termination. If this mission is designed to be terminal, and there are not sustainability systems send with the crew, eventually they will run out of supplies. I would like to avoid the suicide factor, if at all possible.

If we were able to produce a self-sustaining ecosystem within the Europan base, I believe that suicide would not need to be as big of a worry. While depression, motivation, and other factors may play into one wishing to end their own life, knowing that one is able to sustain and live on will decrease the factor. I would recommend that with the craft, enough materials to set up such a self-sustaining colony would be present. Europa is far from the sun, true, but if a power system was developed with the ability to sustain food, power, and life, then the crew would have the factor of longetivity on their side. Discussing power systems is not appropriate for this forum section, but I will continue posting ideas for it.

The bottom line is - why would we make this a terminal mission if we were able to sustain research, exploration, life, and human development?



ragdestein
Administrator
Posts: 17
Re: Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: September 24, 2013, 19:24

I'm sure that we wont make it a terminal mission if there are an alternative.



Vicem
Europa Dreamer
Posts: 17
Re: Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: September 25, 2013, 05:07

If, at some point down the line, it was deemed that this would be a terminal mission, I'd argue for the suicide option. I am not a psychologist but to me a lethal injection (possibly assisted suicide) would be a far better way to die than asphyxiation, starvation, radiation poisoning, or a combination of the three.



Bryan
Europa Astronaut
Posts: 98
Re: Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: October 11, 2013, 22:02

I see no reason for this to be a terminal mission. We've not done missions in the past that were designed to be terminal, even though it would have been easier. For example, in the Cold War, many countries could have launched men to the moon with no hope for return and lauded their sacrifice. But that didn't happen on either side.



EUvisionar-
y
Europa Dreamer
Posts: 23
Re: Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: October 16, 2013, 16:15

The moon has to be the most practical place to start with. Setting up a temporary base there and giving the astronauts some kind of work to do for a period of time is a good idea according to me. They can learn the psychological conditions playing in their mind in that period. To be on a moon around 600 million km away for the first time with all risks of malfunction of communication systems due to some error is a horrifying thought and also a very probable one.



Vicem
Europa Dreamer
Posts: 17
Re: Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: October 16, 2013, 17:24

Bryan: You bring up an interesting point, yet it is a flawed one. When the US landed astronauts on the moon, we weren't entirely sure we could get them back... In fact, Nixon had prepared two speeches to address the public: one which declared the mission a success, the other which basically said "Sorry people, but we're gonna have to leave some astronauts up there...

Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.
These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.
These two men are laying down their lives in mankind’s most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.

Link: http://watergate.info/1969/07/20/an-undelivered-nixon-speech.html



EUvisionar-
y
Europa Dreamer
Posts: 23
Re: Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: October 20, 2013, 11:14

Is there any chance of providing technological entertainment sources to the astronauts? If they are only going to spend the rest of their lives simply working on searching or analyzing life forms or Europan fuels, then suicide might seem like a very probable event. Mars One talks about only astronauts working there and being able to watch videos or listen to music and thats it. For how long can one endure such a dry life, even if they are well trained? Well for me entertainment seems to be an important topic, or this might turn out to be like in the film 'Moon'.



ChrisWeeks-
3D
Europa Dreamer
Posts: 10
Re: Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: October 21, 2013, 23:36

Even if the psychological and sustainability problems are overcome, there absolutely needs to be some sort of euthanasia protocol built into the mission. What if someone gets a cancer that can't be treated on site (especially with the radiation environment)? What if the vessel gets lost floating through space? I'm sure there are many reasons it needs to be given as an option no matter how thorough the mission prep.



Bryan
Europa Astronaut
Posts: 98
Re: Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: November 2, 2013, 05:33

I'm not saying that he mission would be without risk. They might die en route, during landing, or on the way back. But the Apollo 11 explorers were provided with a theoretical way back (that happened to work fine.)

We did not launch them with zero hope of return, though we could have done that faster and cheaper.



paupatto
Europa Dreamer
Posts: 1
Re: Sustainability vs. Terminality
on: November 1, 2014, 04:07

The goal of the Apollo Program as stated by President Kennedy was to land a man on the moon *and return him safely to the Earth*. Sure, there were risks, but a safe return was a central goal of the program.

Pages: 1 2
Mingle Forum by cartpauj | ElegantPress by Theme4Press and SOFTthemes | Sponsored by Sasina Therapy
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.033 seconds.