NASA Ponders Death, Sex On Mars Mission

(AP)  How do you get rid of a dead astronaut's body on a three-year mission to Mars and back?

When should the plug be pulled on a critically ill astronaut who is using up precious oxygen and endangering the rest of the crew? Should NASA employ DNA testing to weed out astronauts who might get a disease on a long flight?

With NASA planning to land on Mars 30 years from now, and with the recent discovery of the most "Earth-like" planet ever seen outside the solar system, the space agency has begun to ponder some of the thorny practical and ethical questions posed by deep space exploration.

Some of these who-gets-thrown-from-the-lifeboat questions are outlined in a NASA document on crew health obtained by The Associated Press through a Freedom of Information Act request.

NASA doctors and scientists, with help from outside bioethicists and medical experts, hope to answer many of these questions over the next several years.

"As you can imagine, it's a thing that people aren't really comfortable talking about," said Dr. Richard Williams, NASA's chief health and medical officer. "We're trying to develop the ethical framework to equip commanders and mission managers to make some of those difficult decisions should they arrive in the future."

One topic that is evidently too hot to handle: How do you cope with sexual desire among healthy young men and women during a mission years long?

Sex is not mentioned in the document and has long been almost a taboo topic at NASA. Williams said the question of sex in space is not a matter of crew health but a behavioral issue that will have to be taken up by others at NASA.

The agency will have to address the matter sooner or later, said Paul Root Wolpe, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania who has advised NASA since 2001.

"There is a decision that is going to have to be made about mixed-sex crews, and there is going to be a lot of debate about it," he said.

The document does spell out some health policies in detail, such as how much radiation astronauts can be exposed to from space travel (No more radiation than the amount that would increase the risk of cancer by 3 percent over the astronaut's career) and the number of hours crew members should work each week (No more than 48 hours).

But on other topics — such as steps for disposing of the dead and cutting off an astronaut's medical care if he or she cannot survive — the document merely says these are issues for which NASA needs a policy.

"There may come a time in which a significant risk of death has to be weighed against mission success," Wolpe said. "The idea that we will always choose a person's well-being over mission success, it sounds good, but it doesn't really turn out to be necessarily the way decisions always will be made."

For now, astronauts and cosmonauts who become critically sick or injured at the international space station — something that has never happened — can leave the orbiting outpost 220 miles above Earth and return home within hours aboard a Russian Soyuz space vehicle.

That would not be possible if a life-and-death situation were to arise on a voyage to Mars, where the nearest hospital is millions of miles away.

Moreover, Mars-bound astronauts will not always be able to rely on instructions from Mission Control, since it would take nearly a half-hour for a question to be asked and an answer to come back via radio.

Astronauts going to the moon and Mars for long periods of time must contend with the basic health risks from space travel, multiplied many times over: radiation, the loss of muscle and bone, and the psychological challenges of isolation.

NASA will consider whether astronauts must undergo preventive surgery, such as an appendectomy, to head off medical emergencies during a mission, and whether astronauts should be required to sign living wills with end-of-life instructions.

The space agency also must decide whether to set age restrictions on the crew, and whether astronauts of reproductive age should be required to bank sperm or eggs because of the risk of genetic mutations from radiation exposure during long trips.

Already, NASA is considering genetic screening in choosing crews on the long-duration missions. That is now prohibited.

"Genetic screening must be approached with caution ... because of limiting employment and career opportunities based on use of genetic information," Williams said.

NASA's three major tragedies resulting in 17 deaths — Apollo 1, Challenger and Columbia — were caused by technical rather than medical problems. NASA never has had to abort a mission because of health problems, though the Soviet Union had three such episodes.

Some believe the U.S. space agency has not adequately prepared for the possibility of death during a mission.

"I don't think they've been great at dealing with this type of thing in the past," said former astronaut Story Musgrave, a six-time space shuttle flier who has a medical degree. "But it's very nice that they're considering it now."

[mikealford3]

BTW winterxl,

There is another story on CBS that addresses the fact that 1 in 4, that's 25%, of the children in America do not have health care. Is it more important to provide health care to our children or "ATTEMPT" to put a probe on Pluto?

[mikealford3]

winterxl,

I am serious. I understand that NASA has many projects ongoing. However, how many scientists are working on multiple projects at the same time? Job Security, to convince someone that going to Mars is possible and then taking 30 years to "attempt" insures the scientists of a job and income.

NASA is currently spending $7 billion to "attempt" to put a probe on Pluto, a rock that is not even considered a planet anymore. This project will take the next 10 years if anywhere near successful, that's 10 years of "JOB SECURITY" because NASA is not going to fire or retire the scientist who knows the project.

NASA can put a robot on Mars, manuever it around and collect soil samples. The robot can analyze the samples and send data back to earth.

YET AMERICA DOES NOT HAVE A MACHINE/COMPUTER CAPABLE OF COLLECTING ELECTION VOTES AROUND THE COUNTRY AND SENDING THE DATA TO A CENTRAL LOCATION. WHY? SOMETHING SO VITAL TO OUR DEMOCRACY AT OUR ELECTIONS, YET WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH A ROBOT ON MARS AND NOT BETWEEN COMPUTERS ON OPPOSITE COASTS.

[winterxl]

sclaires- "Well, they could use astronauts who have been sterilized, i.e., surgically" ... are they friggin cats or something? What if they want to have children when they're back planetside? People like to laugh, but this is a legimate issue. People are people, and living in close quarters over the course of 3 years is highly conducive to intimate relationships. This is very basic sociology & psychology.

mikealford3- Are you serious? And why would you say something like "more NASA pooh"? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, there is a lot of work to be done between now and then. As well, NASA does have many, many projects you know. Ignorant people like you are saddening. You say "What about food, water and oxygen?"...and these are flatly the absolute easiest problems. Please try to at least understand the topic before insulting people. And finally, what "fantasies" and why are you talking about "job security"? You sound like a crazy and you're not making any sense.

-----

Personally, I'd like to learn a bit more about this. I don't know that a person who is say, in a coma is "wasting oxygen", given that they would have been accounted for in the first place. But perhaps the scenario is involving reduced oxygen due to unforseable factors.

[sclaires]

I can see it now. The first baby born in space!! Well, they could use astronauts who have been sterilized, i.e., surgically. I read that Gene Roddenberry said one female for every three males on the Original Star Trek. Guess we will be dead and gone when MASA figues out what to do.

[mikealford3]

This is just more NASA pooh. More attempts at securing their jobs than anything else. Wouldn't be nice to go to work tommorrow knowing that your deadline was 30 years away, that your entire working career is dedicated to 1 project? Wouldn't it be nice to collect your paycheck and tell your boss that "oh yeah, in 30 years we'll be finished" and actually have him believe it?

There is concern about *** and health on a 3 year long trip. What about food, water and oxygen? The shelf life for most products is not 3 years. How big a ship will be needed to carry the supplies?

AGAIN THE FANTASIES OF THESE SCIENTISTS ARE CREATING JOB SECURITY FOR THEMSELVES.

[tucano2]

No need whatsoever to send any humans to Mars or elsewhere because robotic exploration is far more reliable, less expensive, and does not drag along any psychobabble items.

[usawarrior]

Good God! akrecord... you sound like a complete idiot. Are you for real or are you joking?

[akrecord]

What's the point of going to Mars? Big waste of money. I could think of a lot better ways to spend that money. Cure for cancer..medical & insurance costs...schools...gas prices...etc.

[dragonmouse-2009]

Obviously if someone dies you'll have to send it off to a space funeral. Critically injured. That's like previous posters said..."case-by-case". What are their chances. Every position is vital.

***...Cool. They're all adults what's the problem.

[rf35]

Death in space is easy...store or jettison the body. Critical illness or injury will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Who is sick? The mission commander or one of the specialists there to run certain experiments, etc when you get to Mars? It may be necessary to expend more resources to save the pilot than you would to save another crew member.

As for the other issue, maybe only married couples in the crew? If it is too hard to find emough married astronauts to fill the crew, then maybe only single folks with equal numbers of men and women. Compatability tests before the mission? Or all same gender crews? Has anyone addressed the problem with liquids in a 0-g environment?