Search

It is time to think about the rationales of space exploration, more than 50 years after the beginning of human space flight. Between J.F. Kennedy words (“landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth”) and the Mars One, what means today the dangers of exploration, or the concept of “representative of mankind” applied to the astronauts? Beyond the financial, technical and human risks, exploration, and today space exploration, belongs always to the human identity, the way to confront human nature (especially imagination) to the reality of time and space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The French space adventure started more than 40 years ago. Its rich and long scientific and technical tradition made France able to occupy the place which is hers today. But what does happen to the world of arts, to which the French culture brought so much? Beyond some French artists belonging to the community of the space artists, do arts constitute a true dimension of the French space activity? Conversely, did space influence the national artistic culture? This paper proposes to tackle these questions according to a retrospective historical glance and to offer some prospective reflexions. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: What hazards might biological contamination pose to planets, comets and other celestial bodies visited by probes launched from Earth? What hazards might returning probes pose to Earth and its inhabitants? What should be considered an acceptable level of risk? What technologies, procedures and constraints should be applied? What sort of attitude has to be chosen concerning human crews, who themselves could become both contaminated victims and contaminating agents? The vast issue of planetary protection must, more than ever, spark ethical debate. Space treaty, COSPAR recommendations offer borders and context for this reflection, which has to be introduced in the actual humanist: never has been anthropocentrism so practical and concerned, in the same time, by the next generations, because of the historical character of life. At least an ethics of risk is necessary (far from the myth of zero-risk) for all the three types of contamination: other celestial bodies (forward contamination), Earth (backward contamination) and astronauts. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The next time humans set foot on the Moon or another planet, will we treat the crew like we would a sample return mission when they come back to Earth? This may seem a surprising or even provocative question, but it is one we need to address. The hurdles and hazards of sending humans to Mars – for example, the technology constraints and physiological and psychological challenges – are many; but let us not forget the need to protect populations and environments from the risk of contamination [United Nations, treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”) referenced 610 UNTS 205 - resolution 2222(XXI) of December 1966]. The first hurdle is the size of crew modules. It is hard to envisage being able to decontaminate a crew module as thoroughly as we can interplanetary probes at launch. And once a crew arrives on Mars, it will not be easy either to break the chain of contact between their habitat and the Martian environment. How will astronauts avoid coming into direct contact with Mars dust when they remove their spacesuits in the airlock? How will they avoid bringing it into the crew module, and then back to Earth? At this stage, it would seem vital to do preliminary research on unmanned exobiology missions to identify zones that do not, a priori, pose a contamination hazard for astronauts. However, this precaution will not dispense with the need to perfect methods to chemically sterilize Mars dust inside airlocks, and quarantine procedures for the return to Earth. While the technology challenges of protecting astronauts and their habitat are considerable, the ethical issues are not to be underestimated either. They must be addressed alongside all the other issues bound up with human spaceflight, chief among them astronauts’ acceptance of the risk of a launch failure and other accidents, exposure to cosmic radiation and so on. For missions to another planet, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the slightest sign of fatigue or faintness exhibited by returning astronauts might be interpreted as a possible symptom of extraterrestrial contamination. How should we handle such an eventuality? What precautions should we take? What checks should we perform? If a crew was infected, what would we do? Might they have to stay in space ad vitam aeternam if no treatment could be found? In other words, what would be the status of astronauts as both contaminated victims and vectors of contamination? How would we avoid turning such “envoys of mankind” into human guinea pigs? We do not claim to have all the answers, but we think the questions should at least be clearly aired. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]